Chicago to Council Bluffs – Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study 

Tier 1 Service Level

FINAL 

Environmental Impact Statement

May 2013

Federal Railroad Administration

Council Bluffs – Chicago

Omaha
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-1 May 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 BACKGROUND

The Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), in conjunction with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), is evaluating alternatives for the expansion of intercity 

passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and 

Omaha, Nebraska (the Project). Intercity passenger rail service provides “connectivity 

between major urban centers” (MWRRI, September 2004). Iowa DOT’s evaluation is 

documented in this Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study (the Study) Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

Past planning documents identified a “Chicago to Omaha” corridor, so for the purposes of 

this analysis, the corridor reference will remain as previously designated. The Project name 

includes “Council Bluffs” in the title because the Project terminus is the Omaha/Council 

Bluffs metropolitan area; “Council Bluffs” is listed before Omaha because it is located 

between Chicago and Omaha. For passenger rail projects, this Tier 1 EIS focuses on broad 

corridor and service level issues, while subsequent Tier 2 analyses would focus on the details 

of a specific project or action. 

This Tier 1 EIS evaluates the No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative as described in 

Section ES.3. In addition, following publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS, Iowa DOT 

determined that an interim implementation phase for the Project would be needed, as 

described in Section ES.3.4.4. 

ES.1.1 History

The existing rail lines that are proposed to be used to provide passenger service from 

Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska, were all in place by 1871 and were 

initially constructed to carry passengers and to haul a variety of freight (Colton, 1871; 

Hudson, 2005). Most of the passenger service along these routes began in the 1850s, 1860s, 

and 1870s (Young, 2005). By the 1880s, commuter rail service in Chicago had been 

developed in a hub-and-spoke pattern, extending 30 to 40 miles in 15 different directions 

from downtown Chicago. This hub-and-spoke system is still operating today as Chicago’s 

Metra (Conzen, 2005; Young, 2005). Intercity passenger rail service generally was 

terminated by the 1970s, when railroad passenger service declined nationally, and was 

consolidated into Amtrak (Hudson, 2005). 

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) was established in 1991 as part of federal 

transportation acts that included a broader national effort to support high-speed rail 

investment. Sponsors of the MWRRI included Amtrak and nine Midwest transportation 

agencies of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

As a result of the MWRRI and the national high-speed rail initiative, numerous corridors 

were identified and refined, with Chicago as the hub. Between 1996 and 2004, a single 

transportation plan was developed that included all of these corridors; this plan is known as 

the Midwest Regional Rail System. The nine passenger rail corridors originally considered 

for the Midwest Regional Rail System included (see Figure ES-1):

• Chicago to Detroit/Grand Rapids/Port Huron, Michigan 

• Chicago to Cleveland, Ohio 

• Chicago to Cincinnati, Ohio 

• Chicago to Carbondale, Illinois 

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri 

• St. Louis, Missouri, to Kansas City, Missouri 

• Chicago to Quincy, Illinois 

• Chicago to Omaha, Nebraska

• Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and to St. Paul, Minnesota/Green Bay, 

Wisconsin 

Planning, design, and development for passenger rail corridors have progressed since the 

original conception of the Midwest Regional Rail System. Figure ES-2 shows the currently 

proposed rail corridor in the Great Lakes Megaregion as it is anticipated to exist in 2050. 

In 2009 and 2010, Iowa DOT and the Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois DOT), 

in conjunction with FRA, evaluated alternatives for the corridor extending from Chicago 

Union Station to Iowa City, Iowa, with the completion of the Chicago to Iowa City Intercity 

Passenger Rail Service Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment. On October 28, 

2010, FRA awarded Iowa DOT and Illinois DOT a grant of $230 million to proceed with the 

Chicago to Iowa City corridor Tier 2 Project Level studies and construction activities. 

In 2010 and 2011, additional studies were completed for the MWRRI prior to 

commencement of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study. These studies included MWRRI corridor alternatives analysis, capital cost 

updates, operating equipment configurations and performance standards, advanced train 

control, and public outreach (MWRRI, 2011). The Chicago to Omaha corridor (the Corridor) 

was included in these studies. Subsequent to these studies, Iowa DOT and FRA concluded

that analysis for speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph) is warranted for the Chicago to 

Omaha Corridor and would include a maximum of seven round-trips per day. 

Full implementation of the MWRRI would significantly improve Midwest passenger rail 

service by upgrading existing rail lines to permit frequent, reliable, efficient, high-speed 

passenger train operations that would provide through-service and connectivity in Chicago to 

locations throughout the Midwest region. With full implementation, the Midwest Regional 

Rail System would encompass approximately 3,000 route miles in the sponsor states and 

would attract approximately 13.6 million passengers annually. Approximately 90 percent of 

the Midwest region’s population would be within an hour’s ride of a Midwest Regional Rail 

System rail station and/or within 30 minutes of a Midwest Regional Rail System feeder bus 

station (MWRRI, September 2004). 
La k e M ic h ig a n

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

O H

W I 

Fort

Dodge

Sioux

City

Cedar

Falls

Iowa

City

Champaign

Danville

Carbondale

Mattoon

Bloomington

Lafayette

Kokomo

Waterloo

Muncie

Paducah

Ludington

Holland

Kalamazoo

Cadillac

Mount

Pleasant

Midland

Anchorville

Howell

Kirksville

Lima

Youngstown

Des Canton

Moines

Cedar

Rapids

Peoria

Springfield

Rockford

Chicago

Evansville

Gary

Fort

Wayne

South

Bend

Indianapolis

Kansas

City

Overland Park

Topeka

Louisville

Lexington-Fayette

Grand

Rapids Lansing

Ann

Arbor

Flint

Livonia

Warren

Minneapolis

St.

Paul

Springfield

Independence Kansas

City

St.

Louis

Lincoln

Omaha

Cincinnati

Columbus

Dayton

Toledo

Akron

Cleveland

Chatham

Windsor

Green

Bay

Madison Milwaukee

Midwest Regional Rail System

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

May 2013

ES-1

*Indiana DOT is evaluating additional passenger rail service to South Bend and to Louisville.

**In Missouri, current restrictions limit train speeds to 79 mph.

Sources: Routes, IDOT; State/County/City Boundaries, Census/TIGER 2010; Lake, NHD

0 50 100

I

Miles

Rail Corridor*

110 mph top speed

90 mph top speed **

79 mph top speed

Feeder Bus Route
Great Lakes Megaregion Rail System and Areas

of Influence (2050)

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

May 2013

ES-2

Regional Plan Association, 2013,

 America 2015 (http://www.america2050.org).
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-5 May 2013

On October 14, 2011, FRA agreed to a phased implementation approach for the Chicago to 

Iowa City corridor. Illinois DOT is proceeding with the Tier 2 studies and construction 

activities for the portion of the corridor extending from Chicago to Quad Cities with a 

terminus in Moline, Illinois. Iowa DOT would conduct Tier 2 studies for the portion of the 

corridor from the Quad Cities to Iowa City. 

While the Chicago to Iowa City service and Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service may 

ultimately use the same corridor from Chicago to Iowa City for implementation, the level of 

service under consideration is different. From Chicago to Iowa City, service was evaluated at 

a maximum of five round-trip trains per day at speeds up to 79 mph, while the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha service is being evaluated for a maximum of seven round-trip trains 

per day at speeds up to 110 mph. The higher maximum speed and frequency of service for 

the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service would result in additional impacts, and, 

therefore, require additional study. For analysis purposes in this Tier 1 EIS, the passenger rail 

service from Chicago to the Quad Cities is assumed to be constructed and in operation. 

ES.1.2 Study Area

The Corridor extends from Chicago Union Station, in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on the 

east to a terminal in Omaha, Nebraska, on the west. The Study Area consists of the five 

previously established passenger rail routes between Chicago and Omaha that pass through 

the states of Illinois and Iowa (Figure ES-3). 

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

ES.2.1 Purpose

The Project and the Midwest Regional Rail System are intended “to meet current and future 

regional travel needs through significant improvements to the level and quality of passenger 

rail service,” as defined by the MWRRI in its Midwest Regional Rail System Executive 

Report (MWRRI, September 2004). The Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional 

Passenger Rail System would provide competitive passenger rail transportation between 

Chicago and Omaha to help meet future travel demands in the Study Area. The Project would 

create a competitive passenger rail transportation alternative to the available automobile, bus, 

and air service and would meet needs for more efficient travel between major urban centers 

by:

• Decreasing travel times

• Increasing frequency of service

• Improving reliability 

• Providing an efficient transportation option 

• Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort 

• Promoting environmental benefits, including reduced air pollutant emissions, 

improved land use options, and fewer adverse impacts on surrounding habitat and 

water resources
Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Naperville

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

Des Moines River

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I o w a

I l l i n o i s

M N

N e b r a s k a

W i s c o n s i n

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi R iver

DATE

FIGURE

Study Area

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

ES-3

0 20 40

I

Miles

Route 1 (Canadian National Railway,

former Illinois Central)

Route 2

(Union Pacific Railroad,

former Chicago & 

North Western)

Route 3

(Canadian Pacific Railway

and BNSF Railway, 

former Milwaukee Road)

Route 3 Abandoned Portion

Route 4

(Iowa Interstate Railroad

and CSX Transportation,

former Rock Island)

Route 5

(BNSF Railway, former

Chicago, Burlington &

Quincy)
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-7 May 2013

ES.2.2 Need

The need for the Project stems from the increasing travel demand resulting from population 

growth and changing demographics along the Corridor as well as the need for competitive 

and attractive modes of travel (MWRRI, June 2004). Population in the Study Area is 

increasing and becoming more urbanized, with expanded access to and demands for public 

transportation (Iowa DOT, December 27, 2010). The population is also aging and is 

increasingly seeking alternative modes of transportation. Currently, the predominant mode of 

travel in the region is the automobile, estimated to account for approximately 98 percent of 

travel between city pairs in the Study Area. 

Intercity passenger rail service would provide an option to highway and air travel between 

major urban centers in the face of a growing and aging population and increasing congestion 

on Midwest highways and at Midwest airports. A one-way trip by automobile between 

Chicago and Omaha along Interstate 80 (I-80) or Interstate 88 (I-88), at posted interstate 

speeds, would take about 8 hours during off-peak hours. The cost of driving round-trip 

between Omaha and Chicago with one day of parking in either Omaha or Chicago would be 

approximately $547 to $577 respectively. 

I-80 is also a major truck route in the region. Between 2010 and 2030, vehicle miles traveled 

in Iowa on I-80 are expected to increase by more than 65 percent. If no capacity 

improvements are made, nearly 75 percent of I-80 in Iowa would be bordering on unstable 

traffic flow, at or beyond capacity (Iowa DOT, January 24, 2012), resulting in stop-and-go 

traffic conditions in Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha (Federal Highway Administration 

[FHWA], November 2010). 

Air service in the Study Area is currently available between the major cities of Chicago, 

Moline, Des Moines, and Omaha. Direct flight service between Chicago and Omaha is 

served by American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways, with 

typical flight times ranging from 1 hour and 20 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Tickets 

purchased with 2 weeks advanced notice typically cost between $210 and $1,400 (FRA and 

Iowa DOT, 2012). 

Bus service is provided in a majority of mid-to-large sized cities, with intermittent service in 

smaller towns. Service between Chicago and Omaha, with multiple stops, was provided by 

Greyhound, although its routes were taken over by Burlington Trailways in August 2012. 

Typical bus service includes two trips per day—one in the early morning and one in the late 

evening—with travel times ranging from 9 hours and 15 minutes for “Express” service to 

9 hours and 40 minutes for regular service (Greyhound, 2011). Bus ticket prices vary from 

$40 to $126 (FRA and Iowa DOT, 2012). Megabus.com, a subsidiary of Coach USA, is a 

low-fare express bus service that recently added daily service between Chicago and Omaha 

with stops in Iowa City and Des Moines. Megbus.com provides two round-trips per day: one 

in the morning and one in the late evening. The full one-way trip from Chicago to Omaha 

takes 8 hours and 50 minutes. 

Current passenger rail service between Chicago and Omaha is part of Amtrak’s long-distance 

service on the California Zephyr, with arrival and departure times late at night or early in the 

morning, and travel times of approximately 8 hours and 55 minutes from Chicago to Omaha, 

and approximately 9 hours and 36 minutes from Omaha to Chicago (Amtrak, November 7, 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

2011). Tickets purchased with 2 weeks advanced notice typically cost $69 to travel from 

Chicago to Omaha and $108 to travel from Omaha to Chicago (FRA and Iowa DOT, 2012). 

Inclement winter weather in the Study Area often creates conditions that impact both 

highway and air travel, creating a need for an alternative mode that is less prone to winter 

service interruptions. 

ES.2.3 Decisions to be Made

Iowa DOT and FRA must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due 

to the proposed use of FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program funds for the 

Project. FRA has issued guidance supporting a tiered NEPA approach that includes Tier 1 

NEPA documents followed by Tier 2 NEPA documents (FRA, August 14, 2009). With a 

tiered approach, the Tier 1 NEPA document evaluates impacts of a broad-scale project with 

focus on more qualitative than quantitative impacts on specific resources. Following 

completion of the Tier 1 NEPA document and the associated decision document, Tier 2 

NEPA documents are developed to evaluate quantitatively the environmental impacts within 

one or more specific logical sections or phases of the Project, which would be developed 

through separate but related projects.

The purpose of this Tier 1 EIS is to provide environmental resource and regulatory agencies, 

the public, and decision makers with a full understanding of the service-wide environmental 

impacts of the Project alternatives. Decisions to be made through this Tier 1 EIS process 

include selection of a preferred corridor and identification of communities served by station 

stops, frequency of service, speed of service, and a plan for phased implementation of 

service. Prior to implementation of passenger rail service between Chicago and Council 

Bluffs-Omaha, Tier 2 NEPA documents will be developed for the logical sections or phases 

identified in Section ES.7, Next Steps.

ES.2.4 Other Transportation Projects

In addition to the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study, numerous transportation projects in and near the Study Area are in various 

stages of development. These major transportation projects for passenger rail, commuter rail, 

tollways, and interstate travel include the following: 

• MWRRI corridors that are currently funded passenger rail projects and are under 

development at various stages of planning and implementation: 

o Chicago to Detroit (Pontiac), Michigan 

o Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri 

o St. Louis, Missouri, to Kansas City, Missouri

o Chicago to Moline, Illinois (the Illinois portion of the Chicago to Iowa 

City project)

o Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Twin Cities, Minnesota, to Duluth, 

Minnesota 

• An Illinois DOT project between Chicago and Dubuque, Iowa, that is in the early 

planning stages 

• Metra projects that include improvements and expansion of commuter rail service 

in the Chicago metropolitan area 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-9 May 2013

• The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority’s capital programs for improvements to 

existing tollways, development of new tollways, improvements to rebuild and 

restore the existing system, and the recently constructed south extension of I-355 

into Will County 

• Numerous localized interstate improvement projects of both Illinois DOT and 

Iowa DOT, including: 

o Illiana Corridor (Illinois), which would provide a direct connection 

between I-55 in Illinois and I-65 in Indiana 

o Elgin O’Hare West Bypass Study (Illinois), which involves a new 

expressway, arterial, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements west of 

O’Hare International Airport 

o Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements Project (Iowa), which 

addresses improvements to I-80, I-29, and I-480 

ES.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration for the Study, the screening 

criteria and multi-step process used to evaluate the route alternatives, and the results of the 

alternatives analysis are summarized in this section. Subsequent to the route screening 

process, options for service (speeds, frequencies, and station stops) were identified, reviewed, 

and screened, and design options for route connectivity through the Des Moines, Iowa, area 

and the Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, area were considered. The No-Build 

Alternative and Build Alternative (including its phased implementation) are also described in 

detail in this section. 

ES.3.1 Initial Range of Route Alternatives

The potential route alternatives for the Corridor have been evaluated based on reviews of 

previous studies and also the ideas and concepts that were suggested by resource agencies 

and the public during the scoping process. 

The range of route alternatives evaluated included the No-Build Alternative and existing or 

former freight-only or freight-passenger routes that may have been previously identified by 

the MWRRI and other studies. 

The No-Build Alternative, the five previously established passenger rail routes in the 

Corridor (Route Alternatives 1 through 5), and the combination of Route 4 and Route 5 

(Route Alternative 4-A) compose the initial range of route alternatives proposed for 

consideration for the Study. These route alternatives are shown in Figure ES-4, including the 

major cities through which they travel. The No-Build Alternative is included to provide a 

basis for comparison to the other route alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14; 64 FR 28545). 
§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦55

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦90

Des Moines Des Moines

I o w a I o w a

I l l i n o i s I l l i n o i s

K a n s a s K a n s a s

M i n n e s o t a M i n n e s o t a

M i s s o u r i M i s s o u r i

W i s c o n s i n W i s c o n s i n

Nebraska Nebraska

Route Alternative 3 Route Alternative 5/4-A

Route Alternative 2

Route Alternative 4/4-A

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 1

Council Council

Bluffs Bluffs

Osceola Osceola

Slater Slater

Ames Ames

Fort Dodge Fort Dodge

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids

Dubuque Dubuque

Marion Marion

Waterloo Waterloo

Burlington Burlington

Iowa City Iowa City

Galesburg Galesburg

Moline Moline

Savanna Savanna

Rockford Rockford

Chicago Chicago

Elgin Elgin

Joliet Joliet

Naperville Naperville

Omaha Omaha

DeKalb DeKalb

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

DATE

FIGURE

Route Alternatives

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

ES-4

0 20 40

I

Miles

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Route 5

Route Hybrid
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-11 May 2013

ES.3.2 Screening Process

The screening process included two steps: an initial coarse-level screening to identify 

whether any route alternative would be hindered by major challenges (and would thus be 

eliminated from further evaluation) and a subsequent fine-level screening to evaluate each 

route alternative in greater quantitative and qualitative detail. This two-step screening process 

was intended to allow the Tier 1 EIS to focus on only those route alternatives that would 

meet the purpose and need for the service, and that are reasonable and feasible. 

Coarse-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Coarse-level screening was conducted to compare the merits and drawbacks of each route 

alternative against broad screening criteria. These criteria and their factors for evaluation for 

coarse-level screening are as follows: 

• Purpose and Need: Travel Demand (travel demand based on population served) 

• Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes (providing a timecompetitive route)

• Technical Feasibility (major construction efforts and freight train traffic conflicts) 

• Economic Feasibility (benefit/cost ratio and project costs)

• Environmental Concerns: Major Challenges (natural and human environment) 

• Environmental Concerns: Sensitive Areas (wetlands, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, cultural resources, and park and recreation lands) 

• Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way (potential ROW acquisition) 

A conservative 500-foot-wide buffer was applied to each of the route alternatives analyzed in 

the coarse-level screening. Unreasonable alternatives were eliminated from further 

consideration. 

Fine-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Fine-level screening was conducted to determine which remaining route alternatives would 

be carried forward for detailed evaluation in this Tier 1 EIS. During fine-level screening, 

route alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening were further screened for 

their ability to offer the highest potential ridership; the least potential construction, operation, 

and maintenance cost; and the least potential impact on the natural and human environment. 

This screening relied on the broad screening criteria and the factors for evaluation noted 

below: 

• Purpose and Need: Travel Demand (potential ridership) 

• Purpose and Need: Competitive and Attractive Travel Modes (running times that 

are time-competitive) 

• Technical Feasibility: Passenger and Freight Capacity (general infrastructure 

improvements required) 

• Technical/Economic Feasibility: Alignment (alignment or grading problems to 

meet speed and capacity requirements) 

• Technical/Economic Feasibility: Structures (conceptual costs of major structures) 

• Technical/Economic Feasibility: Grade Crossings (at-grade and grade-separated

crossings) 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Economic Feasibility (high-level project costs, including operating and 

maintenance costs) 

• Environmental Concerns: Environmental Impacts (substantial impacts on key 

environmentally sensitive areas in the categories listed below)

o Streams

o Floodplains 

o Wetlands

o Farmland

o Threatened and endangered species

o Cultural resources

o Potential Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties

o Environmental justice

o Noise and vibration 

o Hazardous materials

• Environmental Concerns: Right-of-Way (refining conceptual ROW acquisition in 

relation to demolition/disruption of homes, businesses, farms, and historic 

properties) 

In order to estimate potential impacts during fine-level screening, a preliminary impact area 

was identified for each route alternative. Existing ROW was assumed to be 100 feet wide 

throughout each route alternative. A buffer ranging from 25 to 50 feet wide was then applied 

where necessary to accommodate additional track needs, to promote efficient track 

maintenance, and to mitigate any operating disruptions generated by passenger trains. 

Fine-level screening was applied to the remaining alternatives, and the one or more 

alternatives that passed through the fine-level screening process were carried forward for 

detailed evaluation under the Tier 1 NEPA process.

ES.3.3 Results of Route Alternative Screening Process

The coarse-level screening process eliminated Route Alternative 3 from further consideration 

because it would have the highest cost; require a substantial permitting effort; result in 

unacceptably high impacts on landowners because of the ROW needs; and cause extensive 

impacts on communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. 

The fine-level screening process eliminated Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 from further 

consideration because they were neither reasonable nor feasible, as discussed below. During

fine-level screening, the route alternatives were compared to the base case for two criteria. 

The base case represents the lowest cost or shortest travel time and varies depending on the 

criterion. Route Alternative 4 had the lowest estimated cost and was considered to be the 

base case for the preliminary cost estimate, and Route Alternative 2 had the shortest travel 

time and was the base case for the comparison of travel times. Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 

5 were eliminated for the following reasons: 

• Route Alternative 1 did not meet the purpose and need because it would not 

attract the necessary ridership to generate adequate revenue, would not offer a 

competitive travel time (longest and slowest alternative), would have excessive 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-13 May 2013

operations and maintenance costs, would require a major new structure over the 

Mississippi River, and its costs were excessive compared to the base case. 

• Route Alternative 2 has the shortest travel time, but did not meet the purpose and 

need because it would not attract adequate ridership or generate the necessary 

revenue, would require extensive new ROW and a major new structure over the 

Mississippi River, would have excessive capital cost requirements (costing 

approximately $1 billion more than the base case) without providing any 

additional service or ridership benefits. 

• Route Alternative 4 did not meet the purpose and need because the Chicago 

terminus of Route Alternative 4 is at La Salle Street Station instead of Chicago 

Union Station, which provides the connection to the MWRRI high-speed network. 

This connection would be costly, would have impacts on urban areas through 

which the connection would be constructed, and is not practical. 

Route Alternative 4 was the least costly (not accounting for a connection from 

La Salle Street Station to Chicago Union Station), would attract adequate 

ridership, and would generate adequate revenue. However, Route Alternative 4 

currently does not have a direct connection to Chicago Union Station and does not 

have adequate capacity for the proposed Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

passenger trains to travel on the shared commuter train routes in the Chicago 

urban area. Extensive track upgrades and additional ROW would be needed for an 

additional connection track and main track, and would require extensive 

acquisitions of adjacent homes and businesses. Based on the lack of an existing 

connection from La Salle Street Station to Chicago Union Station and the lack of 

capacity on the existing Metra commuter rail line as well as the associated cost 

and impacts of constructing a connection and providing additional capacity, Route 

Alternative 4 was determined to be neither reasonable nor feasible.

Following publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS for the Project, the Record of 

Decision for the Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 

(FRA, December 2012) was signed by FRA. That Record of Decision indicated 

that a connection is planned from Metra’s Rock Island District track to Chicago 

Union Station along Route Alternative 4. However, an FRA-required Tier 2 sitespecific NEPA document would still need to be completed to evaluate the section 

of the program that includes the connection, and before the project plans would be 

implemented. The proposed connection would require land acquisition in an 

urban setting. In addition, the capacity and level of service of the proposed 

connection is unknown. Consequently, the potential exists that the connection 

might not be present, or may not have adequate capacity, which would affect 

planning and design for the Project. Because the comparison of route alternatives 

for the Project was conducted based on the review of existing conditions, the lack 

of a current connection was a critical element in reviewing the practicality of this 

route alternative.

• Route Alternative 5 did not meet the purpose and need because it would not 

attract adequate ridership or generate the necessary revenue, would require 

extensive new ROW and a major new structure over the Mississippi River, would 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

have excessive capital cost requirements (approximately $1.2 billion more than 

the base case) without providing any additional service or ridership benefits. 

Route Alternative 4-A is the only route alternative carried forward for further analysis in the 

Tier 1 EIS. Below is a summary providing the rationale for carrying forward Route 

Alternative 4-A. When compared to the other route alternatives considered, Route 

Alternative 4-A: 

• Meets Project purpose and need 

• Has relatively low construction complexity and relatively low construction costs 

(technical and economic feasibility)

• Has grade-crossing complexity similar to all route alternatives (technical 

feasibility)

• Is the shortest route alternative (purpose and need) 

• Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need) 

• Serves the largest population (purpose and need) 

• Has the highest ridership and farebox revenue forecast (purpose and need, and 

economic feasibility)

• Has direct access to Chicago Union Station (technical and economic feasibility)

• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns) 

ES.3.4 Description of Alternatives

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative (Route Alternative 4-A) are carried 

forward for further analysis in this Tier 1 EIS and are described below. 

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would consist of the current trackage and operations with the 

present level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track configuration or 

operations. The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction and operation of 

intercity passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha, but independently planned 

construction of passenger rail service from Chicago to Moline would still occur. This project 

is referred to as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program and includes operation of 

two round-trips per day at speeds of up to 79 mph, a connection to join BNSF Railway 

(BNSF) and Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS) track near Wyanet, Illinois, as well as 

improvements at Eola Yard in Eola, Illinois. Construction for the Chicago to Quad Cities 

Expansion Program is anticipated to commence in 2013 and the service to be operational by 

2015. 

Other transportation projects in the vicinity of the proposed Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System could occur independently, with or without the 

Project. Sections 1.5 and 3.26.2 of the Tier 1 Draft EIS provide more information on these 

projects.

Other intercity passenger rail services that currently operate within or adjacent to the Chicago 

to Omaha Corridor, including Amtrak’s California Zephyr and Southwest Chief (both long 

distance trains) and Illinois’ state-supported, Amtrak-operated Illinois Zephyr and Carl 

Sandburg services (regional trains with daytime schedules), are assumed to continue to 

operate under the No-Build Alternative. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-15 May 2013

Under the No-Build Alternative, other forms of long-distance and regional transportation, 

such as commercial airline and bus services, are assumed to continue operating within the

Corridor in the same manner as current operations. 

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because intercity 

passenger rail service would not be reestablished in Iowa City or Des Moines, there would 

not be an attractive alternative to highway or airline travel; and congestion of these modes of 

transportation in the Corridor would not be reduced. 

The No-Build Alternative was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the 

Build Alternative carried forward and to help decision makers and the public understand the 

consequences of taking no action. NEPA requires consideration of no action to serve as a 

baseline for comparison with the proposed action. 

Build Alternative

The Build Alternative, which is the Preferred Alternative for this Project, consists of the 

improvements associated with Route Alternative 4-A to accommodate up to seven round-trip 

passenger trains per day at maximum speeds of up to 110 mph. The Build Alternative, shown 

in Figure ES-5, is approximately 475 miles long and consists of tracks currently owned and 

operated by four rail carriers between Chicago and Omaha. The BNSF and IAIS railways 

own and operate the vast majority of trackage in the Study Area, while Amtrak and Union 

Pacific Railroad (UP) own and operate relatively short distances within the metropolitan 

areas of Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha/Council Bluffs. Figure ES-5 also shows the route 

of the California Zephyr; this service is anticipated to continue regardless of whether the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Project is constructed. 

For the Build Alternative to function efficiently, improvements would be required, including 

infrastructure upgrades, at-grade roadway crossings, stations, and layover and maintenance 

facilities. 

The Build Alternative would include construction of new main track, sidings, and connection 

tracks; upgrades to existing track to enable faster passenger train speeds and the desired 

passenger train service reliability; and installation of wayside signaling systems. Throughout 

the Corridor, connections to the existing main track would be required for meet/pass events, 

access to industries, and capacity for maintenance-of-way activities. Detailed capacity 

modeling will be conducted during Tier 2 analysis to identify more specific requirements for 

revisions of and improvements to the wayside signal system, crossovers and interlocking 

plants, and connection tracks in order to provide adequate capacity for the proposed 

passenger trains. 

In consideration of existing infrastructure, train traffic, roadways, urban land uses, and 

abandoned rail corridors, a few alignment options within the Corridor were identified. There 

are multiple alignment options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and across the Missouri 

River between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, as well as multiple station 

location options in Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha. 
Des Moines River

Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Naperville

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

W I 

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi R iver

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Build Alternative

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

ES-5

0 20 40

I

Miles

Amtrak's California 

Zephyr Route

Build Alternative
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-17 May 2013

The proposed passenger rail service would continue to use existing Amtrak long-distance or 

Illinois-state-sponsored service stations at Chicago Union Station, La Grange Road, 

Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, Illinois; and potentially at Omaha, Nebraska. 

New stations or reuse and modification of existing or past stations are proposed at Geneseo 

and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; 

and potentially Omaha, Nebraska. 

An overnight train layover and light maintenance facility would be required in the Des 

Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, and interim layover and light 

maintenance facilities may be required at Moline or Iowa City depending on implementation 

strategies. Specific sites for layover and light maintenance facilities will be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents. In addition to light maintenance, heavy maintenance for 

locomotives and train sets would be required. The aforementioned Des Moines and 

Omaha/Council Bluff locations for light maintenance could potentially be selected to also 

support heavy maintenance activities

There are approximately 850 at-grade roadway crossings on the Build Alternative. Grade 

crossing surfaces and warning systems would need to be improved to meet safety standards 

for passenger trains traveling at 110 mph. All crossings would undergo diagnostic studies 

during Tier 2 analysis for identification of improvement needs. The crossing analysis would 

evaluate all crossings with potential for closure under the Build Alternative. Warning devices 

would be installed based on speed-dependent criteria. Existing warning devices would be 

reused where practical if they conform to the speed-dependent criteria.

Service Options of Build Alternative

An iterative process was conducted for determining the optimum number of round-trips per 

day, train speeds, and types and numbers of station stops for the Build Alternative. The 

process considered ridership and revenue, as well as general operation and maintenance 

costs, as maximum frequency and speed increased and as station stops were added. Service 

options considered between two and seven round-trips per day between Chicago and Omaha, 

and also between Chicago and Des Moines; maximum speeds of between 79 and 110 mph; 

and two types of station stop service, standard-stop or selected-stop. Standard-stop service 

would involve a train stopping at all identified station stops, and selected-stop service would 

involve a train stopping at only some identified station stops. 

Service options were compared based on estimated travel times, ridership, revenue, and 

general operation and maintenance costs. The primary criteria used to screen the service 

options were the ridership and revenue forecasts because they are indicative of 

competitiveness with other modes of transportation. As anticipated, the 110 mph design 

speed resulted in the quickest trips and the highest estimated ridership. Iowa DOT selected 

the optimum service option (described in the following paragraph) for full implementation, 

and eliminated other considered options (such as different combinations of speeds and station 

stops) that did not have adequate ridership and revenue, and did not have sufficient station 

stops. 

Operations under the Build Alternative would ultimately include a combination of standardstop and selected-stop service. Selected-stop station stops would be Chicago Union Station, 

Naperville, Princeton, and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska. Standard-stop service would include the selected-stop locations 

as well as station stops at La Grange Road, Plano, Mendota, and Geneseo, Illinois, and 

Grinnell and Atlantic, Iowa. Figure ES-6 shows the locations of all station stops. There 

would be up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day travelling between Chicago and Des 

Moines, with five of these round-trips continuing to Omaha. The passenger trains would 

travel at speeds of up to 110 mph, with travel time averaging under 7 hours from Chicago to 

Omaha and under 5 hours from Chicago to Des Moines. These travel times are competitive 

with the personal automobile. 

Phased Implementation

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, and on service development planning 

for this Project, FRA and Iowa DOT anticipate that the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Project would be incrementally funded and that construction and operations would be 

implemented in phases. The specific phasing of the Project is not known at this time but 

would be determined as funding is allocated to the Project. 

The Project is anticipated to expand from the baseline of two round-trips per day from 

Chicago to Moline at a maximum speed of 79 mph (included in the Quad Cities Expansion 

Program passenger rail project) and service extended to Iowa City (included in the Chicago 

to Iowa City project). The Project would then be extended westward sequentially from Iowa 

City, to Des Moines, to Council Bluffs, and then to Omaha. 

A Service Development Plan (SDP) has been drafted for the Project, addressing the rationale 

for and details of the proposed passenger rail service, including a plan for phased 

implementation of the service, an operating plan for each phase of service, and a capital and 

financial plan for determining the types and amounts of funding needed for each phase of 

service. The SDP has an approximate 20-year planning horizon, but under phased 

implementation, full implementation of the Project would extend beyond 20 years. Therefore, 

the SDP focuses on the interim implementation phase, which is the phase of the Project that 

would be implemented within this 20-year planning horizon. The interim implementation 

phase would likely include four round-trips per day at 79 mph between Chicago and Council 

Bluffs. Full implementation would be five to seven round-trips per day at 110 mph between 

Chicago and Omaha, and would be realized over many years of phased implementation as 

federal and state funds are allocated to the Project. 

Consequently, although the Tier 1 Draft EIS evaluated potential impacts of full 

implementation of the Project, FRA decided that the Tier 1 Final EIS would also include an 

analysis of the potential impacts of the interim implementation phase. Section 3.28 has been 

added to the Final EIS for assessing these potential impacts in a qualitative manner. Service 

development planning for the later phases leading up to full implementation would be 

completed in coordination with the Tier 2 NEPA analyses for those phases. 

Preferred Alternative

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1502.14, FRA has identified a preferred 

alternative for this Project: the Build Alternative, Route Alternative 4-A. The Build 

Alternative is preferred because it meets the purpose and need for the Project, giving the 

public a viable option for efficient transportation between Chicago and the Omaha/Council 

Bluffs metropolitan area, and points near and between those Project termini. 
!

!

!

!

!

! !

!!

!! !!

!

!!

!!

Des Moines River

La Grange 

Road

Mendota

Princeton

Geneseo

!!

Naperville

Grinnell

Atlantic

Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Plano

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

W I 

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi R iver

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Station Stops

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

ES-6

0 20 40

I

Miles

Amtrak's California 

Zephyr Route

! Station Stop - - All Trains Build Alternative

!! Station Stop - - Selected Trains
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-20 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and full 

implementation of the Build Alternative based on the detailed analysis of the social, 

economic, and environmental resources documented in Chapter 3 of the Tier 1 EIS. As 

discussed in Section ES.3, the No-Build Alternative does not meet the Project purpose and 

need, but was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the Build 

Alternative. The potential impacts associated with each resource are listed in Table ES-1 and 

are described in more detail in the text that follows the table.

The potential impacts reported in Table ES-1 are based on construction occurring within the 

entire Potential Impact Area. For analysis in this Tier 1 EIS, the area along all alignment 

options under consideration was evaluated as if it would be impacted, and the Potential 

Impact Area also includes a buffer to account for future flexibility in design to avoid or 

minimize environmental impacts. Consequently, the potential impacts predicted to be caused 

by construction are overestimated. For example, although 104,150 linear feet of streams are 

present within the Potential Impact Area, many feet of streams would be undisturbed where 

no new bridges or widening of existing bridges would be required. Specific resource impacts, 

such as whether there would be an adverse effect under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, a use of property under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Act, or an adverse effect under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 

would be determined during Tier 2 analyses. 

Table ES-1 summarizes the potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and the Build 

Alternative. The potential impacts associated with each resource are described in the text that 

follows Table ES-1. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-21 May 2013

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Transportation Increased traffic congestion on 

highway system

Competitive transportation alternative; 

reduced freight traffic interference; 

safety improvements; changes in travel 

patterns where unsafe at-grade 

crossings are closed; temporary 

construction impacts (delays, detours)

Land Use, Zoning, and 

Property Acquisitions

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Impacts on land use, primarily on 

industrial and farmland 

Agricultural Resources Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

3,190 acres prime farmland; 840 acres 

statewide important farmland

Socioeconomic 

Environment

Minor improvements to 

socioeconomic conditions (Chicago 

to Quad Cities only)

Economic benefits provided through 

job creation, joint development, 

improved accessibility, and increased 

economic activity (Chicago to Omaha)

Title VI and 

Environmental Justice

No disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts

Beneficial economic and mobility 

impacts; potential impacts on 

Environmental Justice population area 

in Des Moines

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Quad Cities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Omaha

Public Health and Safety

Improvements to at-grade crossings 

and signals (Chicago to Quad 

Cities)

Improvements to at-grade crossings 

and signals (Chicago to Omaha)

Noise and Vibration Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

1.7 new noise impacts per mile;

7.0 new vibration impacts per mile

Air Quality Increase in pollutant emissions over 

time due to fewer modal shifts

Decrease of most pollutant emissions 

due to increased modal shifts

Hazardous Waste and 

Waste Disposal

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Minor impacts on 3 Superfund (NPL)

sites, 34 leaking underground storage 

tanks, 27 Non-National Priorities List 

sites, and 1 wastewater treatment 

facility site

Cultural Resources No Project impacts

60 historic properties (37 buildings,

1 structure, 3 bridges, and 19 historic 

districts)

Parks and Federally or 

State-Listed Natural Areas No Project impacts 44 parks, 24 recreation areas, and 22 natural areas

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties No Project impacts

44 public parks, 21 public recreation 

areas, 8 public refuges, and 60 historic 

properties

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Minor impacts on sensitive 

receptors 

Impacts on visual resources (parks, 

natural areas, riparian corridors) and 

sensitive receptors in Des Moines

Waterways and Water 

Bodies Minor impacts

Streams: 104,150 linear feet

Lakes: 32 acres

Ponds: 33 acres 

Wetlands Minor impacts

238 acres (1 acre aquatic bed, 84 acres 

emergent, 33 acres scrub-shrub, and 

120 acres forested)
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-22 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Water Quality Minor potential impacts

24 streams on 303(d) list of impaired 

water bodies; more impacts than 

No-Build Alternative

Floodplains Minor impacts 1,657 acres

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils Minor impacts

More impacts than No-Build 

Alternative, but minor impacts on 

Loess Hills 

Natural Habitats and 

Wildlife Minor impacts

178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat; 

aquatic habitat impacts; potential 

impacts from train/animal collisions; 

potential stormwater runoff pollution

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Suitable habitat for federally and 

state-listed species

Suitable habitat for federally and statelisted species with potential for impact 

from constructing a new Missouri 

River crossing

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Increase in energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions due to 

fewer modal shifts

Long-term decrease in energy 

consumption and greenhouse gas 

emissions due to increased modal shifts

Construction Impacts Minor, temporary impacts 

Substantially more impacts than 

No-Build Alternative, but temporary in 

nature

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitments 

of Resources

Minor commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption 

by automobiles

Substantial commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption

Short-Term Use versus 

Long-Term Productivity

Short-term construction impacts of 

other projects, including benefit of 

construction employment; minimal 

reduction in long-term productivity 

of natural resources; and 

improvement in transportation 

network

Short-term construction impacts 

(including benefit of construction 

employment) and reduction in air 

pollutant emissions and long-term 

productivity of natural resources 

beyond that of the No-Build

Alternative; improved long-term 

socioeconomic productivity through 

transportation network enhancement

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Increase in vehicular traffic 

congestion and decrease in air 

quality and energy 

Reduced traffic congestion and vehicle 

emissions; reduced ridership of other 

transportation modes; improved air 

quality and safety; indirect impacts on 

parks, natural areas, and wildlife; 

increased chance of hazardous material 

incidents and water pollution; transitoriented development near stations

Note: All potential impacts shown are preliminary and have been evaluated at a Tier 1 level of analysis. 

Impacts will be reviewed and revised as necessary within future Tier 2 NEPA documents.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-23 May 2013

ES.5.1 Transportation

According to travel demand and diversion forecasts for 2040, The Build Alternative would 

attract a projected ridership of approximately 1,922,800 passenger trips per year. The Build 

Alternative is projected to divert 1,366,300 automobile trips, 324,700 bus passenger trips, 

and 40,900 plane passenger trips per year, and would also generate an induced demand 

estimated to be approximately 190,900 passengers per year; reducing fuel usage, air 

pollutants, and non-passenger rail transportation system congestion in the Study Area. 

Unsafe at-grade crossings may be eliminated, where alternate access can be reasonably 

provided, resulting in some changes to the travel patterns of the existing transportation 

system. In some locations, where appropriate and feasible, implementation of gradeseparated crossings would improve the safety, traffic flow, and efficiency of the 

transportation system. Construction activities for improvements related to grade crossings 

would result in temporary impacts on the vehicular transportation system; including traffic

congestion, delays, detours, and disrupted access to properties and neighborhoods. 

Typical travel times for the Build Alternative would be approximately 6.5 hours. This would 

provide a competitive transportation alternative to the automobile and bus service, and would 

be competitive in fares compared to air service. A one-way trip between Omaha and Chicago 

would take about 8 hours by automobile at posted interstate speeds, approximately 9.5 hours 

by bus, and approximately 1.5 hours by plane. Under the No-Build Alternative, traffic 

congestion, air pollutants, and fuel usage would continue to worsen. 

ES.5.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions 

Within the Study Area, the majority of land uses within urbanized areas are industrial in 

nature and currently adjacent to existing freight rail lines. As a result, few direct or indirect 

impacts on sensitive uses are anticipated from the Build Alterantive. Most improvements 

would be located adjacent to existing rail lines and stations. The stations along the rail line 

are anticipated to enhance transportation-oriented development. New ROW would be 

acquired for the Build Alternative at station locations, maintenance facilities, and in areas 

where a new parallel track would be required. The Build Alternative would also include 

Des Moines Design Option 3, an option for a southeast alignment through Des Moines, Iowa, 

that would require substantial property acquision, and would run parallel to the Southeast 

Connector. Although this area is industrial in character, sensitive land uses that would be 

directly impacted include an established residential neighborhood and Chester Field Park. 

New ROW would be required for the No-Build Alternative at station locations and at Wyanet 

and the Eola Yard in Illinois. 

ES.5.3 Agricultural Resources

Impacts of the Build Alternative within rural areas primarily include impacts to agriculture, 

including approximately 3,190 acres of prime farmland and approximately 840 acres of 

farmland of statewide importance. These impacts would be relatively minor linear amounts 

that would be needed for adding parallel track and siding to the existing railroad grade. No 

severances of existing farmland would occur. The No-Build Alternative would have minimal 

impacts on farmland. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.5.4 Socioeconomic Environment

Although the Build Alternative would cause some temporary disruptions to existing 

businesses and neighborhoods during construction, it would provide long-term economic 

benefits to communities through job creation, potential for joint development, and increased 

economic activity. Under the No-Build Alternative, modest improvements to socioeconomic 

conditions would be realized since there would be increased service between Chicago and the 

Quad Cities, but not in the remainder of the Corridor. 

ES.5.5 Title VI and Environmental Justice

Throughout most of the Study Area, there would be no anticipated disproportionate adverse 

human health or environment effect on minorities or low-income populations because a 

majority of the project improvements would be within or adjacent to existing ROW. 

However, the Build Alternative includes an optional alignment through Des Moines 

(Des Moines Design Option 3) that would impact both minority and low-income populations. 

During Tier 2 analyses, refinements in the design options could avoid or minimize impacts 

on adjacent minority and low-income populations. The Build Alternative would provide 

benefits for these populations through improved accessibility, mobility and employment 

opportunities. Under the No-Build Alternative, impacts on environmental justice populations 

are not anticipated. 

ES.5.6 Elderly and People with Disabilities

There would be no anticipated permanent adverse impacts on the existing transportation 

services and general mobility of elderly persons and persons with disabilities because a 

majority of the project improvements would be within or adjacent to existing ROW. The 

Build Alternative would provide an additional means of accessible public transportation for 

the elderly and disabled populations, support expanded transit operations for efficient use of 

the transit system, and increase the availability of transportation options that connect to other 

cities beyond their immediate region. The No-Build Alternative would not result in 

permanent adverse impacts on the transportation and mobility of the elderly and people with 

disabilities, although there would be some benefits by providing service through the Chicago 

to Quad Cities Expansion Program. 

ES.5.7 Public Health and Safety

The Build Alternative would include additional track and substantial track and signal 

upgrades, to address public health and safety, and to limit conflicts with existing freight rail 

service. A centralized traffic control (CTC) system, with positive train control (PTC) 

integration, including a wayside signal system and remote control switches, would also be 

installed where needed. The Build Alternative would provide a safe and efficient mode 

choice for travel from Chicago to Omaha. The No-Build Alternative would contribute to 

increased train operations between Chicago and the Quad Cities. Consequently, the potential 

for at-grade conflicts would increase and upgraded warning or traffic control devices would 

be required to help protect the safety and health of workers and the public. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-25 May 2013

ES.5.8 Noise and Vibration

Analysis results for the Build Alternative show 5,172 moderate and 2,373 severe noise 

impacts compared to existing conditions. Compared to the No-Build Alternative, a low 

incremental increase in new noise impacts per mile associated with the Build Alternative 

would occur: 569 moderate and 271 severe noise impacts over an approximately 500-mile 

corridor. The Build Alternative is projected to result in approximately 1.1 new moderate 

noise impacts per mile, 0.6 new severe noise impact per mile, and a combined total of 

1.7 new noise impacts per mile over approximately 500 miles. On this basis, the incremental 

increase in train noise is not significant. 

Of the 7,545 new noise impacts predicted to occur under the Build Alternative, 3,260 of them 

are attributed to locomotive horn use, and they occur in areas where locomotive horns are 

currently in use (with many of them occurring even if the Project is built or not). The analysis 

does not account for any change in at-grade intersections to grade-separated intersections 

where horns would not be required. Implementing quiet zones has the potential to further 

reduce these impacts. Because of the preliminary nature of this Tier 1 analysis and the 

acknowledgement that upgrade of some at-grade intersections would be known during Tier 2, 

these grade-crossing impacts are not considered significant. The remaining 4,285 noise 

impacts attributable to the Build Alternative are associated with wayside noise and are spread 

throughout the corridor (equivalent to less than one noise impact per mile), which makes 

mitigation challenging and potentially impractical in some areas based on the consideration 

of feasibility and reasonableness of noise barriers for a few receptors. Given the minimal 

number of noise impacts per mile, and the potential that many of the impacts may not occur 

either through conversion of at-grade intersections to grade-separated intersections or 

through use of quiet zones, noise impacts, whether the Project is built or not, are not 

considered significant. 

The ground-borne vibration analysis identified approximately 7.0 vibration impacts per mile 

associated with the Build Alternative. On a Project-wide basis, 7.0 additional vibration 

impacts (due to 14 daily pass-by events) per mile are not considered significant. However, 

the number of vibration impacts is projected to dramatically increase in more densely 

populated portions of the study area, particularly where train speeds may reach a maximum 

of 110 mph. The magnitude of the increase in vibration impacts attributable to the Build 

Alternative is considered to be significant. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, 4,603 moderate and 2,102 severe noise impacts are 

estimated to occur along the approximately 500 mile corridor. Vibration impacts under the 

No-Build Alternative are not projected to change. If the Project were not constructed, the 

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would contribute to slightly increased noise and 

vibration along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha route. 

ES.5.9 Air Quality

Impacts on air quality are unavoidable because the Build Alternative would include new train 

service. However, impacts on emissions, energy consumption, and climate change would be 

beneficial overall because this additional rail service is anticipated to replace some passenger 

vehicles, and bus and plane trips along a similar route. Trains produce fewer emissions per 

passenger than other modes of transportation. Year 2040 projections indicate that operation 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-26 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

of the Build Alternative would directly impact the air quality by reducing hydrocarbon (HC) 

emissions by approximately 142 tons per year and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 

approximately 2.7 tons per year. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emission, would decrease by approximately 23,513 tons per year. Nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions, the only GHG emission that would increase with the Build Alternative, 

would increase by approximately 420 tons/year. 

A general conformity analysis included the assessment of air quality impacts of the Build 

Alternative in the counties which are currently designated as maintenance or nonattainment, 

all of which are in the Chicago area. The slight increase in NOx emissions is balanced by a 

reduction in emissions of HC, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter 

(PM-10), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). This 

reduction would help the counties and states with their air quality management. Although the 

resulting net emissions are below the de minimis threshold, this general conformity analysis 

would need to be verified in the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. Under the No-Build Alternative, 

another viable and energy efficient transportation mode such as passenger rail service would 

not be provided. Therefore emissions of pollutants generated by vehicles and planes are 

expected to increase due to anticipated worsening traffic congestion. 

ES.5.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Because of track and crossing upgrades, the safety of hazardous material transportation by 

freight trains would improve under the Build Alternative along the entire Corridor, and 

would experience minor improvements under the No-Build Alternative between Chicago and 

the Quad Cities. The Build Alternative would impact three National Priority List (NPL) 

Superfund sites, 27 non-NPL sites, 34 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, and 

one wastewater treatment facility. 

Although the Build Alternative is within the contamination areas of three NPL sites, specific 

impacts would not be determined until the Tier 2 NEPA studies. The potential for exposure 

to hazardous waste contamination during construction may vary. The Des Moines TCE Site, 

and the Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination Site (in Des Moines), have both gone 

through cleanup activities. However, the cleanup of contaminated soils in the Omaha Lead 

Site includes only residential yards, public parks, playgrounds, and child care facilities. 

Consequently, the Corridor, extending primarily through industrial use areas within the 

boundaries of the Omaha Lead Site, could have some residual lead contamination in the soil.

For the No-Build Alternative, it is anticipated that there would be only minimal impacts on 

hazardous material or waste sites.

ES.5.11 Cultural Resources

The Potential Impact Area, which accounts for the area potentially disturbed by construction, 

includes 60 historic resources (37 buildings, 1 structure, 3 bridges, and 19 historic districts) 

either listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. Direct impacts on NRHP resources could occur within the Potential Impact Area, and 

indirect impacts (such as visual and noise impacts) on historic resources could occur within 

the APE. As the Project proceeds into the Tier 2 NEPA process, avoidance of these 

properties would be considered. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-27 May 2013

Based on a review of cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), resources 

outside but near the Potential Impact Area were also reviewed for indirect impacts, such as 

visual intrusion or audible impacts, as a result of construction activities and future operation 

of the passenger rail system. Depending on the proximity of cultural resources to operating 

trains, structures may be identified for protection from noise and vibration impacts and 

incompatible visual intrusions. If the Project would require diminishment of historic 

properties, these modifications may be considered potential adverse effects and require 

further Section 106 consultation to determine the preferred method of treatment (mitigation).

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased noise and ground vibration along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha 

route. The Chicago to Quad Cities Tier 1 environmental assessment indicated that no impacts 

on significant cultural resource properties were anticipated to occur for the Wyanet 

Connection and Eola Yard improvements. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program 

has the potential to affect historic properties within and between the aforementioned cities, 

but the impacts would be addressed as part of the Tier 2 NEPA process and Section 106 

consultation for that project. 

ES.5.12 Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas

The Potential Impact Area includes 44 parks, 24 recreational resources, and 22 natural areas. 

In most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are within the Potential Impact 

Area, which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design refinement and likely 

reduction of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. There are three parks (Tiffin City Park in 

Tiffin, Iowa; Twin Creek Park in Pleasant Hill, Iowa; and Waterworks Park in Des Moines, 

Iowa) and two natural areas (Zoo Woods Forest Preserve in Riverside, Illinois, and Correll 

Wildlife Area near Adair, Iowa) that are transected by the Build Alternative. In addition, 

there are six locations where there are parks, recreation areas, or natural areas on opposite 

sides of the Build Alternative. Avoidance of these properties would be considered in the Tier 

2 analysis and unavoidable impacts will be further analyzed in the Tier 2 and Section 4(f) 

NEPA documents. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased air emissions and noise in parks, recreation areas, and natural areas along 

this portion of the Corridor. The Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service Tier 1 

Service Level Environmental Assessment, which included the Chicago to Quad Cities 

service, indicated that no impacts on parks or recreation areas were anticipated to occur for 

the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements, but some prairie areas would likely be 

disturbed to construct the Wyanet Connection. 

ES.5.13 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties

The Potential Impact Area, which includes land likely to be disturbed during construction 

and thereby resources on which the Project would have direct effects, includes 44 public 

parks, 21 public recreational resources, 8 public refuges, and 60 private and public historic 

properties. In most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are within the 

Potential Impact Area, which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design 

refinement and likely reduction of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. In some cases, 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-28 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

resources protected by Section 4(f) would be transected by the Potential Impact Area, 

including three parks and two natural areas.

As the Project proceeds into Tier 2 analysis, avoidance of these properties would be 

considered and unavoidable potential impacts would be further analyzed. It is not anticipated 

that any impacts would result in a constructive use of these Section 4(f) resources. Further 

evaluation of the potential impacts will be addressed during Tier 2 analysis when more 

details of the design and operation are known. 

The Potential Impact Area also includes three individual parks and five park districts or 

community park departments that received Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). 

During Tier 2 analysis, coordination will occur with the administering agencies to determine 

if lands within the Potential Impact Area were improved with LWCF funding. If any areas 

are considered to be LWCF lands, potential impacts will be addressed during Tier 2 analysis.

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on Section 4(f) 

and 6(f) resources are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

ES.5.14 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality

Only small portions of visual/scenic resources would be within the Potential Impact Area 

because additional ROW would be abutting the existing ROW rather than being on new 

alignment. As a result, alteration of these resources and effects on the views of those 

resources would most likely be minimal. In addition, the expansive Mississippi and Missouri 

Rivers would provide unique scenic views as the passenger trains travel on the bridges over 

these water resources. Views of scenic resources would also be provided by adjacent parks, 

recreation areas, natural areas (including the Loess Hills), perennial stream corridors, historic 

buildings, and views of urban and rural small town character. The Build Alternative follows 

existing railroad alignments and would travel by residential areas containing sensitive visual 

receptors. However, those residents are currently accustomed to views of the railroad 

facilities. Des Moines Design Option 3 would result in visual impacts to the sensitive visual 

receptors in the neighborhood that it would bisect. Under the No-Build Alternative, it is 

anticipated that there would be minimal or no direct impacts on visual/scenic resources and 

sensitive residential visual receptors because of little or no additional ROW acquisition. 

ES.5.15 Waterways and Water Bodies

The Build Alternative would cross, or otherwise impact, approximately 104,150 linear feet of 

waterways. In addition, 32 acres of lakes and 33 acres of ponds would potentially be 

impacted. For the No-Build Alternative, including the Wyanet Connection and the Eola Yard 

in Illinois, there would be minimal impacts on waterways and water bodies.

ES.5.16 Wetlands

Based on National Wetlands Inventory mapping, there would be potential impacts on 

approximately 1 acre of aquatic bed wetland, 84 acres of emergent wetlands, 33 acres of 

scrub-shrub wetlands, and 120 acres of forested wetlands, totaling 238 acres of potential 

wetland impacts within the Potential Impact Area. As the project proceeds into the Tier 2 

NEPA analyses, wetland impacts will most likely be reduced as actual ROW requirements 

are determined and minimized where practicable. For the No-Build Alternative, including the 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-29 May 2013

Wyanet Connection and the Eola Yard in Illinois, there would be minimal impacts on 

wetland areas. 

ES.5.17 Water Quality

The Build Alternative would cross 24 of the 28 streams on the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters (water quality limited waters) within the Study Area. The Build Alternative could 

potentially affect the water quality of several water resources, as would the No-Build 

Alternative, but to a lesser extent. Potential water quality impacts could be caused by soil 

erosion from stormwater runoff, fill material placed in water resources, and construction of 

bridges and culverts or culvert extensions. In addition, potential pollutant runoff and spills 

from operation and maintenance activities could potentially reach adjacent water resources. 

The avoidance or minimization of water quality impacts would be accomplished in 

appropriate areas by the use of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) and 

adherence to federal and state water quality requirements. 

ES.5.18 Floodplains

The Build Alternative would cross and permanently encroach on several 100-year floodplain 

areas as a result of adding track and siding, bridge additions or replacements, and culvert 

replacements or extensions. Approximately 1,657 acres of 100-year floodplains would be 

within the Potential Impact Area. For the No-Build Alternative, including the Wyanet 

Connection and the Eola Yard in Illinois, there would be minimal impacts on 100-year 

floodplains. 

ES.5.19 Topography, Geology, and Soils

The topographic conditions are not expected to pose an adverse challenge to the Build 

Alternative since it is adjacent to an existing railroad grade, and minimal cut and fill would 

be required. Bedrock encountered in the Potential Impact Area would increase construction 

costs, but would not be an insurmountable challenge for the project. In addition, the Build 

Alternative would not impact the underground mining entrances located in the Des Moines, 

Iowa area. The Build Alternative would have minor impacts on the Loess Hills landform area 

as a result of adding track and siding in the northeast portion of Council Bluffs, Iowa. The 

grading operations of the Build Alternative would impact various soil types, most of which 

are silt loams and silty clay loams, which would not pose adverse construction challenges.

It is anticipated that there would be no impacts from topography, geology, or soils having 

characteristics that would adversely affect the No-Build Alternative. 

ES.5.20 Natural Habitats and Wildlife

It is estimated that approximately 178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat areas would be 

directly impacted by the Build Alternative, in addition to the aquatic habitats (waterways, 

water bodies, wetlands) previously discussed. Because the proposed widening activities abut 

the existing ROW, impacts from the alternative would be relatively minimal and linear, and 

would not further fragment remaining large parcels of natural habitat areas. 

The wildlife species that are present along the rail corridor have been continually exposed to 

train traffic in varying degrees. However, improvements of the Build Alternative—including 

new CWR track, and new trains and equipment having less overall weight than freight 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-30 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

trains—would result in less noise and vibration than the existing train noise and vibration that 

the resident and migratory species have been experiencing. It is therefore anticipated that 

impacts from noise and vibration would be negligible. The potential effects of noise and 

vibration, and potential train collisions with migratory birds and other wildlife, which can 

vary considerably among species, will be further analyzed during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, 

in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and state resource agencies.

During the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, coordination with USFWS, the Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources (Illinois DNR), Iowa Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR), and 

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) would take place to determine potential 

locations of migratory bird and/or eagle occupancy within the Study Area, in addition to 

determining seasonal nesting, roosting, and foraging requirements of potentially affected 

wildlife species. The increase in train traffic and railroad ROW could also increase the 

chances of water quality/pollutant-related impacts on wildlife and their habitats. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the number of noise and vibration occurrences, potential 

collision impacts, and water quality/pollutant-related impacts on wildlife and their habitats 

would be fewer than those of the Build Alternative. 

ES.5.21 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Build Alternative would have no impacts on designated critical habitats (DCHs) of any 

federally listed threatened or endangered species. It is also possible that one or more new 

bridge structures could be needed across the Missouri River, which is suitable habitat for the 

federally endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and piping plover species 

(Charadrius melodus). In addition, it is likely that the upland and riparian woodland areas in 

the Iowa counties of the Study Area may potentially provide suitable foraging and roosting 

habitat for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), although there is no DCH for this 

species in the Study Area. The Build Alternative would result in minimal linear impacts to 

wooded areas, rather than fragmenting large parcels of woodlands. The Build Alternative 

would also result in minor linear impacts on the Eola Road Marsh, which contains habitat for 

four state-listed endangered species. 

The potential for train collisions with threatened or endangered species, and potential effects 

of noise and vibration, which can vary considerably among various species, will be further 

analyzed during the Tier 2 NEPA process, in coordination with USFWS and state resource 

agencies. The potential for impacts from erosion and sedimentation, pollutant runoff and 

spills, and temporary construction impacts would also be further analyzed in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. 

Field surveys and coordination with USFWS, Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC will take 

place during the Tier 2 NEPA studies to determine the potential for the existence of, and 

impacts on threatened or endangered species in the Study Area. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, it is anticipated that there would be no adverse effects on 

federally listed species, and may have potential minor impacts on state-listed species, if only 

temporary, at the Eola Road Marsh. In addition, the number of noise and vibration 

occurrences, potential train-species collision impacts, and water quality/pollutant-related 

impacts on potential threatened and endangered species would be fewer than those of the 

Build Alternative. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-31 May 2013

ES.5.22 Energy Use and Climate Change

Implementation of the Build Alternative would have the potential to provide energy savings 

and would reduce the transportation system’s impact on GHG emissions. Based on a 

preliminary passenger rail forecast, the Build Alternative would provide a net reduction on 

energy consumption and GHG emissions through diverted trips from automobiles, buses, and 

trains to new passenger rail service. Ridership and modal diversion forecasts indicate that the 

Build Alternative would decrease automobile traffic by approximately 646.3 million 

passenger-miles per year and reduce bus travel by approximately 153.6 million passengermiles per year. CO2, the main GHG emission, would decrease by approximately 23,513 tons 

per year. Although new passenger trains would consume approximately 17.1 million gallons 

of fuel per year, automobile fuel consumption would decrease by approximately 17.8 million 

gallons per year. Under the No-Build Alternative, passenger train service would not be as 

readily available to the public west of Moline, resulting in the continued reliance of 

automobiles, buses, and planes for transportation for this portion of the Study Area. As a 

result, energy consumption and GHG emissions would likely continue to steadily increase. 

ES.5.23 Construction Impacts

Typical main line improvements proposed for the Build Alternative include construction of 

an additional track through much of the Study Area to increase rail capacity and limit 

conflicts with existing rail operations. Other construction activities include an upgrade of the 

rails, cross ties, signalization, and grade crossing protection throughout the Potential Impact 

Area. Construction of these improvements would result in temporary construction impacts, 

including increases in waste disposal, potential impacts to water quality, air quality, 

increased noise levels, vibration, dust, traffic congestion, visual changes, disrupted access to 

properties and neighborhoods, and safety issues. Under the No-Build Alternative, temporary 

construction impacts would be similar to those of the Build Alternative, but to a lesser extent.

ES.5.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of land where additional ROW is needed. The land would be converted from its 

current condition to a railroad grade and track. Construction materials would consist largely 

of steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood. Whereas the use of these materials would be 

largely irretrievable, these resources are not in short supply and many of the materials could 

be recycled for other projects when they no longer meet the design needs for passenger rail 

service. Several energy resources would be committed to the Project, including petroleum, 

natural gas, electrical, and manpower expenditures for construction, operation, and 

maintenance. These resources are generally irretrievable. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

some commitment of resources for that project for constructing the Wyanet Connection and 

Eola Yard improvements. Also, energy resources would continue to be consumed by 

automobile travelers between Chicago and Omaha at a slightly higher rate than with the 

Project.
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-32 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.5.25 Short-Term Vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment

The Build Alternative could contribute to potential short-term construction impacts related to 

hazardous materials and waste disposal, water quality, air quality, noise and vibration, 

property access, and traffic and pedestrian delays/detours. In addition, short-term 

employment, use of materials to construct the project, and purchases of goods and services 

generated by project construction could create a short-term increase in the local economy that 

would end once the construction phase is completed. 

In the region between Chicago and Omaha, the addition and enhancement of passenger rail 

service would contribute to improvements in the transportation network and access within the 

region by providing competitive passenger rail service that would meet the needs of 

increased future travel demand and more efficient travel between major urban centers. With 

the Build Alternative, long-term benefits would include a reduction in air pollution emissions 

as a result of passenger rail service replacing automobile, bus, and plane trips; and decreased 

congestion on local streets and highways. Other long-term benefits would include improved 

accessibility within the region, economic benefits through employment opportunities, 

potential for transit-oriented development, increased economic activity, improvements in 

safety for at-grade crossings. 

In addition to some permanent impacts to waterways, water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, 

plant communities, natural habitat, and wildlife; other long-term losses/effects on the 

productivity of the environment would include the following: 

• Removal of existing farmland from productivity 

• Reduction of the local tax base as a result of acquiring farmland, commercial, and 

industrial property for additional railroad ROW 

• Potential economic impacts on other modes of public transportation 

• Potential acquisition of park land, recreation land, and natural areas 

• Noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors 

• Collision impacts on wildlife 

The No-Build Alternative would contribute to short-term and long-term impacts and benefits

similar to those of the Build Alternative, but to a lesser extent. 

ES.5.26 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Construction and operation associated with any phase of the Build Alternative has the 

potential to cause indirect impacts. The following is a summary of potential indirect impacts 

identified through evaluation of various environmental resources: 

• Increased noise and ground vibration, as well as air emissions, and visual and 

aesthetic impacts could potentially result in indirect impacts of reduced use of 

nearby parks, recreation areas, and natural areas. Section 4(f) properties could be 

indirectly affected by noise, ground vibration, aesthetics, and access issues. 

Additionally, there could be indirect impacts on wildlife through reduced use of 

areas near train operations. Threatened or endangered species could potentially be 

indirectly affected by air emissions and water quality impacts affecting habitat.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-33 May 2013

• Indirect effect of reducing ridership on current transportation services, such as 

intercity bus and flight service, by offering a competitive alternative to these 

modes. Diverted trips from these modes to passenger rail service may have 

implications to the viability of these modes in the future. 

• Potential indirect positive impacts include a slight reduction in vehicular 

congestion on I-88 and I-80 within the Study Area. This would have positive 

impacts on air quality, safety and reduce future delays due to congestion. 

• Commencement of passenger service and modification of at-grade crossings 

could indirectly affect traffic flow from previous traffic conditions. 

• Increased chance of a hazardous material incident, which could also affect water 

quality as railway contaminants or accidental chemical/fuel spills from operations 

and maintenance activities could reach water resources adjacent to, or 

downstream of the project area. 

• Noise and vibration from passenger rail traffic could cause indirect impacts to 

cultural resources by affecting visitor experience. Induced transit-oriented 

development in the vicinity of station areas may indirectly affect nearby cultural 

resources.

• Potential indirect impacts to downstream water bodies and wetlands could occur 

from culvert and/or bridge replacements. 

• Transit-oriented development could result indirectly from the construction and 

use of station locations. 

• Indirect impacts on adjacent land uses from changes in traffic flow at rail 

crossings and near future station sites. Temporary traffic indirect impacts would 

occur through closings during construction and rerouting traffic through adjacent 

neighborhoods and business areas. Increased travel time and delay for local 

residents and potential economic impacts to businesses that depend on convenient 

accessibility. Potential increased congestion and traffic delays near crossings with 

new passenger rail service. 

• Temporary increase in GHG emissions from construction activities from on-site 

equipment as well as increased delays and congestion from automobile and bus 

traffic. 

• Indirect positive impacts on air quality from contributing to the development of a 

more complete multi-modal transportation system within the Study Area and 

encouraging changes in long-term travel behavior and advocacy for more energy 

efficient modes of transport that improve air quality. 

• Upgrades to rail infrastructure may indirectly benefit existing freight service.

Cumulative impacts from other projects in the region would also occur. The majority of 

projects are linear transportation projects, often occurring either in existing ROW or adjacent 

to existing ROW. It is likely that many of these projects would be affecting drainage and 

could involve impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. In rural areas, it is likely that 

the other projects may be affecting farmland, natural areas, and wildlife habitat primarily 

through expansion of existing corridors. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-34 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

When considered collectively with other projects in the region, the Build Alternative would 

have a slight beneficial contribution to cumulative impacts by improving overall air quality 

and reducing roadway congestion and would have the potential for increased transit-oriented 

development. Should construction of this Project occur simultaneously with some of the 

other projects in the region, existing passenger and freight rail services could see temporary 

increases in delays and congestion, but overall train traffic would be maintained throughout 

construction. 

Many of the other transportation projects are improvements along existing alignments, with 

reconstruction or other modifications occurring either within or adjacent to existing ROW. 

Therefore, new impacts of the other projects outside existing ROW would be relatively 

narrow and linear. Consequently, cumulative impacts on resources within a designated area, 

such as a watershed or ecosystem, would likely be minor. 

The majority of the Build Alternative corridor is in rural areas dominated by farmland uses. 

Highly developed areas are also present along the corridor. Land use throughout the 

Corridor is likely to remain unchanged with the implementation of the Build Alternative and 

other proposed projects. Suburban areas associated with large cities such as Chicago and 

Des Moines are likely to incur the most change in land use with a potential for cumulative 

impacts because of the land available for modification in areas where population is 

increasing.

Given the numerous planned transportation projects, air quality, mobility, and safety would 

cumulatively benefit. Minimal cumulative negative impacts associated with these projects 

would likely occur on farmland, habitat, wetlands, and streams along the Build Alternative. 

Station development associated with the Build Alternative has the potential to result in 

induced development in close proximity to the stations. However, station locations will be 

selected through coordinated efforts with local city/county/metropolitan area planners to help 

ensure that the sites and opportunities presented for growth development are suitable to 

handle increased traffic and other demands, minimizing the potential for adverse cumulative 

impacts. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased air emissions, energy consumption, and noise along this portion of the 

Chicago to Omaha route. Potential direct, or indirect, and cumulative impacts of those 

improvements are being addressed in Tier 2 NEPA documents currently underway. The 

No-Build Alternative would result in a slight indirect impact on transportation due to the lack 

of passenger rail service between Moline and Omaha. This indirect impact would primarily 

be in the form of increased traffic congestion as travelers between Moline and Omaha would 

continue to use existing roadways. In addition, the No-Build Alternative would have a slight 

negative contribution to cumulative impacts on transportation by continuing the dependence 

on personal automobiles on highways for travel between Moline and Omaha, and to a more 

limited extent, between Chicago and Moline. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-35 May 2013

ES.5.28 Permits

Construction of the Build Alternative would likely require the following federal, state, and 

local permits and approvals: 

• Section 404 Permit – USACE (Waters of the U.S. impacts)

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)

• Section 9 Bridge Permit – USCG (navigable waters)

• Section 10 Permit – USACE (impacts in navigable waters)

• Section 402 NPDES Permit – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ (land disturbance 

and stormwater runoff) 

• Section 408 Approval – USACE (impacts to levees/flood control structures) 

• Floodplain Development Permit – DNRs of each state, and local jurisdictions

• Air Pollution Control Permits – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR 

Part 61 – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• Iowa Sovereign Lands Construction Permit – Iowa DNR

• Formal Notice and Airspace Review – Federal Aviation Administration

The No-Build Alternative may also require a majority of these same permits.

ES.5.29 Interim Implementation Phase Impacts

As discussed in Section ES.3.4.4, Phased Implementation, the interim implementation phase 

of the Project is the last phase that would be implemented within the 20-year planning 

horizon of the SDP. The interim implementation phase would consist of four round-trips per 

day at 79 mph between Chicago and Council Bluffs. A qualitative review was performed for

the impacts that the interim implementation phase would have on each resource previously 

reviewed for impacts under full implementation of the Build Alternative in Sections ES.4.1 

through ES.4.27. 

The interim implementation phase was evaluated based on two main categories of activities 

likely to cause environmental impacts: 1) ROW acquisition and construction (footprintdependent impacts), and 2) operation and maintenance of the system. Some resources were 

evaluated individually, and some were addressed in aggregate. In addition, some resources 

would be affected by only one category, and some resources would be affected by both 

categories. For example, natural habitats and wildlife can be directly affected by vegetation 

removal as a result of ROW acquisition and construction impacts, and can also be affected by 

train operations as a result of animal collision impacts. 

Whereas the interim implementation phase would be a step toward full implementation 

(which would have the greatest Project impacts), less ROW acquisition and construction 

would be required in this phase, and fewer operations and slower speeds would occur. 

Consequently, adverse environmental impacts would be less than for full implementation of 

the Build Alternative, and are discussed qualitatively in comparison to the estimated impacts 

of full implementation (previously described in Sections ES.4.1 through ES.4.27). In 

addition, any beneficial impacts that would result from the interim implementation phase, 

such as reduced cumulative air emissions from more efficient transportation of people, would 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-36 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

not occur to the same extent as under full implementation of service. A more detailed 

discussion of the impacts on each resource is presented in Section 3.28 in Chapter 3 of this 

Tier 1 EIS.

ES.6 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION

Table ES-2 introduces potential mitigation for impacts to resources that would result from 

full implementation of the Build Alternative, as identified through the Tier 1 NEPA process. 

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be identified and discussed during 

Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific 

impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction. 

Table ES-2. Potential Mitigation

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Transportation

Signal upgrades to address safety concerns at intersections and to limit 

disruption of existing freight rail service. Traffic Control and Safety plan 

for construction. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will 

be discussed in Tier 2 NEPA documents.

Land Use, Zoning, and

Property Acquisition

Where property acquisition cannot be avoided, the provisions of the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

will be followed. During Tier 2 analyses, the extent of land use, zoning, 

and property acquisition impacts will be analyzed for potential mitigation 

issues that may be identified through agency coordination and public 

involvement.

Agricultural Resources

As part of the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination would take place with the 

NRCS. Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for 

Corridor Type Projects, would be required to determine if farmland impacts 

are above the threshold level for consideration of farmland protection 

measures. 

Socioeconomic Environment

In the Tier 2 analysis, strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential 

impacts on socioeconomic conditions (neighborhoods, community facilities, 

businesses, employment) will be considered. In addition, public 

involvement and agency coordination activities may result in identification 

of potential mitigation needs.

Title VI and Environmental 

Justice

Potential mitigation measures will be determined in the Tier 2 NEPA

studies, if it is determined that adverse human health or environmental 

effects occur to minority and/or low-income populations, and if those 

effects are determined to be disproportionately high.

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

Adverse impacts on the elderly and people with disabilities could be 

mitigated by providing beneficial ADA compliant services and facilities 

for those populations. A more detailed analysis of adverse impacts on the 

elderly and disabled populations, mitigation measures, and the public 

involvement process will be provided in the Tier 2 NEPA documents. 

Public Health and Safety

The Tier 2 NEPA studies will address safety measures and strategies to 

protect the health and safety of passengers, as well as motor vehicles and 

pedestrians, at existing or new at-grade crossings.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-37 May 2013

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Noise and Vibration

Minimizing locomotive horn use would be the greatest opportunity to 

mitigate potential noise impacts. Other mitigation measures could include

upgrading of some electronic circuitry through installation of constant time 

circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade roadway-rail crossings. 

Municipalities can choose to initiate the process of developing quiet zones 

to take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the proposed project. 

During the Tier 2 NEPA process, measures to mitigate ground-borne 

vibration would be evaluated.

Air Quality

During the Tier 2 NEPA studies, mitigation to reduce NOx emissions would 

be considered and investigated, such as converting fleet vehicles from diesel 

fuel to alternative fuels, or the feasibility of implementing idling restrictions 

for locomotives at station stops and maintenance facilities. All emissions 

are below their de minimis thresholds for the nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. General air quality conformity analysis modeling may 

be required in Tier 2 NEPA documents to verify these findings.

Hazardous Waste and Waste 

Disposal

Potential impacts on or from NPL Superfund sites and other non-NPL sites 

will be further evaluated in the Tier 2 NEPA studies, to determine level of 

risk and potential mitigation or cleanup procedures. Mitigation 

requirements may include safety procedures and protection of human 

health and the environment to help ensure that there would be no further 

contamination of adjacent sites, and to provide a safe working environment 

during construction. In addition, solid waste materials generated during 

construction could be recycled or properly disposed of.

Cultural Resources

If, during the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents, it is determined that 

the project will adversely affect NRHP-eligible historic resources, 

mitigation measures may be developed in accordance with the terms of a 

PA between FRA and consulting parties, including the ACHP and SHPOs. 

Parks and Federally or StateListed Natural AreasSpecific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be discussed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified.

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties

During the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents, minimization and 

mitigation measures for adverse impacts will be determined, to the extent 

required, through consultation with the official of the agency owning or 

administering the resource. Minimization of harm could include alternative 

design that lessens the impact on Section 4(f) resources and/or mitigation 

measures that compensate for residual impacts.

For 6(f) LWCF lands that cannot be avoided, mitigation would include

replacement property that is of at least equal fair market value as the 

impacted property, and of reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation 

purposes.

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Through continued public involvement, residents’ concerns about the 

potential views of the railroad facilities will be identified. Mitigation and 

impact minimization efforts will be addressed in more detail in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. Mitigation could include consideration of potential 

measures such as appropriate re-vegetation of disturbed areas of the scenic 

resources, visual screening of railroad facilities from adjacent residential 

areas, appropriate design of aesthetic features, and landscaping that would 

complement and blend with the context of the surrounding visual 

environment. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-38 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Waterways, Water Bodies, and 

Wetlands

Mitigation options for unavoidable impacts on waterways, water bodies, 

and wetlands will be discussed in more detail during the Tier 2 NEPA 

documents. Mitigation measures could include mitigation banking, in-lieu 

fees, and on-site or off-site mitigation. During the design process, 

coordination will take place with the USACE and appropriate state resource 

agencies to develop mitigation strategies. The mitigation strategies to be 

identified and selected would account for the fact that not all mitigation 

options are available to all states and USACE Districts. 

Water Quality

The Tier 2 NEPA documents would address mitigation measures and 

control of pollutants and sediments in regard to the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), and stormwater Best Management Practices 

(BMPs). In addition, each state’s required Section 401 Water Quality 

Certifications would be addressed. Mitigation for impacts on mapped or 

unmapped water wells, including proper abandonment of the wells (such as 

plugging and sealing) to prevent groundwater pollution would also be 

addressed. 

Floodplains

During the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination with the State Emergency 

Management Agencies (SEMAs), the DNRs of each state, and local 

floodplain administrators would be initiated to discuss floodplain 

development permitting and potential mitigation measures. In accordance 

with Executive Order 11988, discussions would include avoidance and 

minimization measures such as restoring natural and beneficial floodplain 

values, significant changes in flooding risks or damage, and the potential for 

incompatible floodplain development.

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils

No requirements for mitigation related to topographic, geologic, and soil 

conditions are anticipated, with the exception of impacts on the Loess Hills, 

which could include buffer zones and re-establishing native vegetation. 

Specific impacts and potential mitigation measures will be investigated and 

evaluated in further detail in the Tier 2 NEPA documents.

Natural Habitats and Wildlife

During the Tier 2 process, avoidance and minimization of impacts would be 

assessed, and unavoidable impacts to natural habitats and migratory birds

would be coordinated with USFWS and state resource agencies to 

determine compliance with regulatory requirements and potential mitigation 

measures to offset impacts, which could include restrictions on construction 

activities in specific areas during the breeding/nesting seasons. 

Coordination with Iowa DNR would also take place regarding mitigation of 

woodland impacts, which require replacement according to Iowa Code 

314.23, Environmental Protection.

Threatened and Endangered 

Species

During the Tier 2 process, Section 7 consultation with USFWS would take

place to determine whether or not the Build Alternative could have the 

potential to affect a federally listed species, and if so, whether or not the 

proposed activity would adversely affect (jeopardize the continued 

existence of) a listed species. Mitigation measures for unavoidable adverse 

impacts would be determined as part of the formal Section 7 consultation. 

Avoidance and minimization of impacts on state-listed species would also 

be assessed during the Tier 2 NEPA documents. If it is determined that 

unavoidable impacts on state-listed species would occur, coordination with 

the Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC, as appropriate, would take place

to determine potential mitigation measures. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-39 May 2013

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Mitigation may not be required for energy and climate change due to the 

positive impact and the diverted trips from other modes of transportation,

lowering the overall amount of CO2 emissions along the Study Area.

Verification will be made during the Tier 2 NEPA studies.

Construction Impacts

Impacts from construction activities will be reviewed and mitigation will be 

considered during the development of the Tier 2 NEPA documents. The 

potential for Project construction impacts may be mitigated through

measures such as the following:

• Waste Disposal – Recycling and properly disposing of construction 

debris. 

• Water Quality – Management of stormwater runoff through

implementation of BMPs. 

• Air Quality – Adherence to construction permit conditions and all 

state and local regulations in regard to emissions and exhaust, 

fugitive dust, and burning of debris. 

• Noise and Vibration – Equipping and maintaining muffling 

equipment for construction machinery, and limiting times of day 

for various construction activities. 

• Access – Development of a traffic mitigation plan for construction 

sequencing. 

• Traffic and Safety – Developing and implementing a traffic control 

and safety plan.

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be discussed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific indirect and cumulative impacts are 

identified.

ES.7 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

Agency coordination, tribal coordination, and public involvement have taken place during 

the development of this Tier 1 EIS. 

ES.7.1 Agency Outreach

Agencies are categorized as public entities with decision-making authority for the public. 

Agency coordination has included interaction through email notices, email responses, 

in-person meetings, and teleconferences. An early coordination (EC) packet and invitation to 

the agency scoping meeting was provided to 14 federal agencies, 13 Illinois state agencies, 

14 Iowa state agencies, 9 Nebraska state agencies, and several county/regional and municipal 

governmental organizations within or near the various route alternatives. Agency input on the 

Study and Project was received during the agency scoping meetings on February 21, 2012, in 

Ames, Iowa, and on February 22, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois, as well as through responses to 

the EC packet distributed on April 1, 2012. Federal and state resource agencies provided 

guidance concerning potential environmental requirements, including permitting and 

approvals needed for the Project. Representatives from counties and local municipalities 

generally noted their support for the Project, primarily for economic purposes, with a 

preference for route alternatives within or near their jurisdiction, or a proposal for a 

combination of route alternatives or a connection line from their municipalities to the route 

alternative. Route Alternative 4 or 4-A through the Quad Cities, Iowa City, and Des Moines 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-40 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

was generally favored based on a small sample size of representatives from counties and 

local municipalities. Chapter 4 of this Tier 1 EIS provides a full list of the agencies providing 

comments, documents the issues raised, summarizes the comments, and notes the responses. 

Cooperating Agencies

On May 17, 2012, FRA extended an invitation to 24 federal and state agencies to become 

cooperating agencies for this Tier 1 EIS. Invitation letters were sent to specific agencies 

based on FRA and Iowa DOT’s identification of reviewing agencies that may have an 

interest in the Project because of the potential for intergovernmental issues and/or the 

potential for impacts within that agency’s legal jurisdiction. Cooperating agencies participate 

in meetings, provide pertinent information, raise concerns, assist in determining appropriate 

mitigation, and review pre-draft and pre-final documentation. 

Agencies that agreed to serve as cooperating agencies on this Project are:

• FHWA Iowa Division

• FTA Region V 

• USACE Rock Island District

• USCG District 8

• U.S. Department of the Army, Rock Island Arsenal

• USEPA Region 5 

• USEPA Region 7 

• USFWS Rock Island

• Illinois DNR

• Iowa SHPO

The Tier 1 Draft EIS was issued to these agencies, along with other agencies and the public, 

and comments from cooperating agencies were considered during preparation of the Tier 1 

Final EIS. Section 4.4 in Chapter 4 includes a summary of comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, 

Appendix O has been supplemented with specific agency comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, 

and Appendix Q includes a table of comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS and responses to those 

comments.

Milestones

Iowa DOT coordinated with both reviewing and cooperating agencies from Illinois, Iowa, 

and Nebraska at selected Project milestones during this Study. These milestones are 

1) purpose and need, 2) alternatives to be analyzed, 3) alternatives to be carried forward, and 

4) selection of the preferred alternative which was addressed in the Tier 1 Draft EIS and 

made available to all reviewing and cooperating agencies. 

ES.7.2 Tribal Outreach

Coordination with Illinois DOT and the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) was 

conducted to compile a list of tribes and Native American groups, whose tribal ranges 

included the portions of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska along the route alternatives. A 

coordination packet that described the Study and Project, and included a figure of the route 

alternatives, was mailed to representatives of each of 15 tribes and Native American groups 

on May 17, 2012. An information packet was also sent to the Nebraska Commission on 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-41 May 2013

Indian Affairs. At the request of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, 14 additional Sioux Tribes of the 

region were sent EC packets on July 5, 2012. 

The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas does not currently have sufficient staffing to provide input on 

the Project and deferred to other tribes and Native American groups with similar historical 

ties. The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska reviewed the route alternatives and indicated that it 

has cultural properties in some of the areas that could undergo construction, and requested 

that they be notified immediately if any burial sites or other cultural properties are found. The 

Yankton Sioux Tribe noted that the proposed route alternatives fall within its ancestral lands 

and is requesting further coordination for conducting a traditional cultural property (TCP) 

study and including other Sioux tribes in the region as part of Project coordination. Section 

4.4 in Chapter 4 of this Tier 1 EIS includes a summary of comments received on the Tier 1 

Draft EIS, including those from tribes and Native American groups, and Appendix Q 

includes a table of comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS and responses to those comments. 

ES.7.3 Stakeholder Outreach

At the onset of the Study, Iowa DOT conducted a Stakeholder Analysis to identify public 

stakeholders in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska who may be affected by or have data related to 

the Study. The stakeholder database expanded as more members of the public engaged in the 

Study through the public outreach process. All identified stakeholders are receiving updates 

at Study milestones via various outreach tools, including a Study webpage on Iowa DOT’s 

website, a Project website for hosting online meetings, a toll-free Study information line, an 

online community tool kit (including a community survey), and an email mailing list.

To announce online and in-person meetings, press releases and media advisories have been 

released to all print media outlets statewide in Illinois and Iowa, and to the Omaha World 

Herald and Lincoln Journal Star in Nebraska at all Study milestones, public participation 

opportunities, and comment periods. This media strategy resulted in 66 earned media 

mentions in local and national news outlets from February 2012 through January 21, 2013. 

In addition to press releases, advertisements have been placed 11 newspapers throughout the 

Study Area to announce the public meetings and avenues to review information and provide 

comments. 

Iowa DOT, in conjunction with FRA, hosted an online open-house meeting from February 13 

to April 16, 2012, for the public to understand and comment on the scope of the Study and 

the initial range of route alternatives. The online scoping meeting was held on the Project

website (http://chicagotoomaha.com/). Public comments from the online scoping meeting 

were collected through online comment forms, email messages, letters mailed or faxed to 

Iowa DOT, and the toll-free Study information line. Based on automatic electronic login 

recordation for the online open-house meeting, there were 2,789 attendees, and 994 

comments were collected.

Very few public comments expressed concern with potential impacts on the natural and 

physical environment, either from not constructing the Project or from constructing and 

operating the Project. The majority of commenters supported development of the Project and 

cited a variety of reasons for their support, including fuel efficiency, reliability, safety, 

comfort, competitive cost, and economic development. Those not in favor of the Project gave 

several reasons, including that current bus service is sufficient and that taxpayer funds should 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-42 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

not be used for the Project. However, there were several commenters indicating support for 

the Project if no taxpayer funds were used. Commenters identifying themselves as retirees 

and/or college students typically supported the Project. A summary of comments is 

presented in Section 4.3.2 in Chapter 4 of this Tier 1 EIS.

A set of three public information meetings was held in May 2012 to obtain input from the 

public on preliminary results from screening the initial range of route alternatives. The 

public information meetings were conducted both through in-person open-house meetings 

held in three locations and through an online, self-directed open-house meeting. In-person 

meetings were conducted on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, at Chicago Union Station in Chicago, 

Illinois; Wednesday, May 2, 2012, at the State Historical Society Building in Des Moines, 

Iowa; and Thursday, May 3, 2012, at the Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa. The 

online open-house meeting was available from May 1 through May 21, 2012, on the Project 

website. 

During the comment period for the alternatives analysis, 208 comments were received from 

agencies, organizations, and the public. The majority of commenters noted that they would 

use the project and cited a variety of reasons, including personal or business travel. In 

addition, 134 commenters noted their support for the Project, including a preference for 

Route Alternative 4 or Route Alternative 4-A, as well as potential economic benefits. Six

comments were submitted by those who were not in support of the Project. Non-supportive 

comments cited the use of taxpayer money and the lack of a market for long-term use. 

In addition to the public information meetings, two Stakeholder Meetings were held in May 

2012 with invited municipal representatives, elected officials, and community leaders to 

discuss the same information that was presented at the in-person and online open-house 

meetings. 

Public opinion of the full implementation of the Preferred Alternative from Chicago to 

Omaha was gathered through an online community survey, which began April 13, 2012. This 

survey was qualitative in nature and reflects the opinion of only those 1,934 people who 

elected to respond. The survey remained open until December 26, 2012, the end of the 

comment period on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The vast majority of respondents indicated that they 

would use the service for business travel or both business and personal travel, support the 

establishment of regional passenger rail, and think it will have a positive economic impact.

ES.7.4 Tier 1 Draft EIS Public Hearing and Comment Process

After the Tier 1 Draft EIS was published, Iowa DOT and FRA held public hearings in three 

major communities along the proposed route: Chicago, Illinois – December 11, 2012; Des 

Moines, Iowa – December 12, 2012; and Council Bluffs, Iowa – December 13, 2012. In all, 

152 people signed in at the three public hearings, with the highest attendance (74 people) 

occurring at the Des Moines, Iowa, hearing. Each hearing included a formal presentation, 

followed by a question-and-answer session. Iowa DOT and consultant staff were available 

for discussions, which were held with attendees at the information boards and aerial maps of 

the Study Area. Attendees wishing to provide comments were invited to complete and submit 

a comment form either in person or through direct mail, or to use one of the many other 

Project comment mechanisms, discussed below.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-43 May 2013

At all three public hearings, the same information was presented. The purpose of the public 

hearings was for Iowa DOT to receive public input on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, including the 

Project’s purpose and need, all reasonable alternatives, the affected environment, and the 

potential environmental impacts of the alternatives considered. Iowa DOT also explained the 

basis for selection of the Build Alternative and the No-Build Alternative.

In addition to the public hearings, Iowa DOT hosted an online open-house meeting from 

November 9 through December 26, 2012, on the Project website 

(http://chicagotoomaha.com/), which presented the same information as the public hearings. 

The online open-house meeting garnered 910 unique visitors through the end of the comment 

period on December 26, 2012. 

Following the last public hearing, a Stakeholder Meeting was held in Council Bluffs, Iowa on 

December 14, 2012 with municipal representatives, elected officials, and community leaders. 

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the same information that was presented at the inperson public hearings and online open-house meeting. 

Very few public comments expressed concern with potential impacts on the natural and 

physical environment, either from not constructing the Project or from constructing and 

operating the Project. The majority of commenters supported development of the Project and 

cited a variety of reasons for their support, including fuel efficiency, reliability, safety, 

comfort, competitive cost, and economic development. Those not in favor of the Project gave 

several reasons, including that current bus service is sufficient and that taxpayer funds should 

not be used for the Project. Key comments are summarized in Section 4.4 in Chapter 4 of this 

Tier 1 EIS.

ES.7.5 Future Opportunities for Input

The scoping period and public comment period on the Tier 1 Draft EIS provided 

opportunities for agencies; tribes and Native American groups, and stakeholders to review 

route alternatives and the potential impacts associated with their implementation. The 

comments received during the public comment period were reviewed and used to create this 

Tier 1 Final EIS, which has been issued in the same manner as was the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The 

Tier 1 Final EIS will be available for review for 30 days, and FRA can take no action for 

implementing the proposed action during the comment period. Subsequent to the end of the 

comment period, FRA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) to document its decision on a 

proposed action. The ROD will address public input on the Tier 1 Final EIS and will 

document the selected alternative as well as specific mitigation measures and other 

environmental commitments. The issuance of the ROD will complete the Tier 1 process.

ES.8 NEXT STEPS

ES.8.1 Tier 1 Completion

The Tier 1 Draft EIS was issued to solicit input on the preferred alternative from the public, 

resource agencies, tribes, and Native American groups. Comments received on the Draft EIS 

during the comment period were used to prepare and issue this Tier 1 Final EIS that 

addresses these comments. Subsequent to distribution of the Final EIS, a Record of Decision 

(ROD) will be developed, documenting the decision of selecting the preferred alternative and 

the process for accommodating mitigation measures that will be implemented in subsequent 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-44 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

phases of the Project. Most mitigation measures represent commitments for further 

coordination with the public, resource agencies, tribes, and Native American groups during 

Tier 2 studies as more detailed information on the design of the Project is developed. 

ES.8.2 Tier 2 Sections

As funding becomes available, Tier 2 studies and NEPA documentation would be advanced 

for logical sections of the proposed Project. That is, one or more sections could be developed 

as individual projects that would comprise components of the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System Program. Separate Tier 2 NEPA documentation 

would be prepared for each of the sections identified; however, the specific class of NEPA 

document has not yet been determined for each of the Tier 2 sections. Each of the sections 

would have independent utility and, therefore, could be improved with or without 

improvements to other sections. Likewise, each of the sections could be implemented in 

phases, as discussed further in Section ES.7.5. Preliminary design and NEPA documentation 

would be conducted in support of those Tier 2 studies because such details are necessary to 

identify the resources that would be impacted by construction activities, and on a long-term 

basis. At this time, the following Tier 2 sections are anticipated for full implementation, but 

these sections may be combined, modified in the future, or revisited based on available 

funding: 

• Chicago to Aurora, Illinois, Track Improvements

• Aurora, Illinois, to the Wyanet Connection near Wyanet, Illinois, Track 

Improvements 

• Wyanet Connection near Wyanet, Illinois, to Iowa City, Iowa, Track 

Improvements 

• Mississippi River Bridge

• Iowa City, Iowa, Station 

• Iowa City, Iowa, Layover and Maintenance Facility 

• Iowa City to Short Line Yard, Des Moines, Iowa, Track Improvements 

• Grinnell, Iowa, Station 

• Des Moines, Iowa, Short Line Yard Improvements 

• Des Moines, Iowa, Station 

• Des Moines, Iowa, Layover and Maintenance Facility 

• Des Moines to Council Bluffs, Iowa, Track Improvements 

• Atlantic, Iowa, Station 

• Council Bluffs, Iowa, Station 

• Omaha, Nebraska/Council Bluffs, Iowa, Layover and Maintenance Facilities 

• Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska, Track Improvements 

• Missouri River Bridge 

• Omaha, Nebraska, Station 

ES.8.3 NEPA Documents and Additional Studies

Multiple NEPA documents would be developed during the Tier 2 NEPA process, but are 

anticipated to be a mixture of Environmental Assessments for areas such as the Missouri 

River crossing between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, and Categorical 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-45 May 2013

Exclusions for areas with minimal effects. Public input would be considered in the Tier 2 

NEPA and design processes. In addition to NEPA documentation for evaluation of the Tier 2 

sections, numerous studies would be completed as part of the Tier 2 NEPA process to 

determine the specific nature and quantity of impacts. For each Tier 2 section, the analyses 

would consider avoidance and minimization of impacts on sensitive environmental resources 

and may include: 

• Detailed local-level alternatives analysis

• Wetland delineations and identification of Section 404 permitting requirements 

• Cultural resources surveys and Section 106 consultation 

• Threatened and endangered species surveys

• Engineering surveys 

• Noise and vibration analysis 

• Section 4(f) evaluation

• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

• Air emissions analysis in non-attainment areas

• Station-area traffic studies 

ES.8.4 Mitigation Planning and Project Commitments

Potential mitigation for impacts is summarized in Section ES.5. Specific mitigation during 

the Tier 2 process would be determined in consultation with the federal or state agency 

responsible for assessing impacts on a given resource. As needed, formal consultation would 

occur with resource agencies to address obligations to minimize and mitigate impacts, such 

as those obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). During the Tier 1 process, the primary 

commitments have been to work with the public, resource agencies, tribes, and Native 

American groups to identify specific mitigation measures during the Tier 2 process and 

subsequently implement those measures. 

ES.8.5 Phased Implementation

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, and on service development planning 

for this Project, Iowa DOT anticipates that the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Project 

would be incrementally funded and that construction and operations would be implemented

in phases. Within the approximate 20-year planning horizon of the SDP, initial and 

successive phases have been considered through the interim implementation phase, which is

the last phase that would be implemented using existing SDP information. Funding initially 

could be allocated for improvements of facilities to support speeds lower than a maximum of 

110 mph, or to improve/construct particular stations and maintenance and layover facilities. 

Service initially could start with fewer stations, at lower speeds, and with fewer round-trips. 

As more funding is allocated to the Project, further improvements could be implemented to 

expand service. The specific phasing of the proposed Project is not known at this time but 

will be determined as funding is allocated to the proposed Project. Figure ES-7 illustrates the 

proposed implementation phases. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-46 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Based on current service development planning, the proposed Project is anticipated to 

commence with two round-trips per day from Chicago to Moline at a maximum speed of 

79 mph (Phase 1); Phase 1 is funded and would occur independently as part of the Quad 

Cities Expansion Program passenger rail project. Phase 2 would include two round-trips per 

day between Chicago and Iowa City. The Project would then be extended westward to 

Des Moines, with two and then four round-trips per day between Chicago and Des Moines. 

The last phase of the proposed Project that would be implemented within the 20-year 

planning horizon of the SDP would be four round-trips per day between Chicago and Council 

Bluffs. The proposed schedule developed for the SDP for these phases includes the following 

estimated time frames: 

• Chicago to Moline (two round-trips) – construction 2014-2015; service begins 

December 31, 2015 

• Chicago to Iowa City (two round-trips) – construction 2015-2016; service begins 

2017 

• Chicago to Des Moines (two round-trips) – construction 2020-2021; service begins 

2022 

• Chicago to Des Moines (four round-trips) – equipment procurement 2024; service 

begins 2025 

• Chicago to Council Bluffs (four round-trips) – construction 2028-2029; service 

begins 2030 

After additional service development planning is completed in the future, the service would 

be extended to Omaha; currently estimated to commence in 2040. Ultimately, the speed and 

the frequency of round-trips would increase with subsequent implementation phases up to a 

maximum of 110 mph and up to seven round-trips per day from Chicago to Des Moines, with 

five of the round-trips extending from Chicago to Omaha. Full implementation would be 

realized over many years of phased implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to 

the proposed Project.
DATE

FIGURE

Implementation Phases

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013

ES-7

0 20 40

I

Miles
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ES-48 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS i May 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SHORT FORMS....................................................................... x

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED...................................................................................................1-1

1.1 History........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Study Area .................................................................................................................1-6

1.3 Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................1-9

1.3.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................1-9

1.3.2 Need............................................................................................................1-9

1.4 Decisions to be Made...............................................................................................1-13

1.5 Other Transportation Projects ..................................................................................1-14

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Route Alternatives Development and Screening........................................................2-1

2.1.1 Initial Range of Route Alternatives ..............................................................2-1

2.1.2 Screening Methodology...............................................................................2-2

2.1.3 Screening Criteria........................................................................................2-2

2.1.4 Screening Process ......................................................................................2-4

2.2 Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................2-13

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative...................................................................................2-13

2.2.2 Build Alternative.........................................................................................2-15

2.2.3 Preferred Alternative..................................................................................2-28

2.3 Summary of Potential Impacts .................................................................................2-28

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................3-1

3.1 Transportation............................................................................................................3-3

3.1.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements................................................3-3

3.1.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................................3-3

3.1.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...................................................................3-6

3.1.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .........................................................................3-6

3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures......................................................................3-8

3.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions ............................................................3-8

3.2.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements................................................3-8

3.2.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................................3-8

3.2.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...................................................................3-9

3.2.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .........................................................................3-9

3.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-11
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 ii Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.3 Agricultural Resources.............................................................................................3-12

3.3.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-12

3.3.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-12

3.3.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-13

3.3.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-13

3.3.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-14

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment....................................................................................3-14

3.4.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-14

3.4.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-14

3.4.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-17

3.4.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-17

3.4.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-19

3.5 Title VI and Environmental Justice...........................................................................3-19

3.5.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-19

3.5.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-20

3.5.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-21

3.5.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-21

3.5.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-23

3.6 Elderly and People with Disabilities..........................................................................3-23

3.6.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-23

3.6.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-23

3.6.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-26

3.6.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-26

3.6.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-27

3.7 Public Health and Safety..........................................................................................3-27

3.7.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-27

3.7.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-28

3.7.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-28

3.7.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-29

3.7.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-29

3.8 Noise and Vibration..................................................................................................3-30

3.8.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-31

3.8.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-38

3.8.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-38

3.8.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-46

3.8.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-56
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS iii May 2013

3.9 Air Quality ................................................................................................................3-57

3.9.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-57

3.9.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-58

3.9.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-58

3.9.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-59

3.9.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-60

3.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal....................................................................3-60

3.10.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-60

3.10.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-61

3.10.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-63

3.10.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-63

3.10.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-65

3.11 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................3-65

3.11.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-65

3.11.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-67

3.11.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-67

3.11.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-67

3.11.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-70

3.12 Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas ..................................................3-70

3.12.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-71

3.12.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-71

3.12.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-71

3.12.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-72

3.12.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-72

3.13 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties ................................................................................3-72

3.13.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-73

3.13.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-73

3.13.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-74

3.13.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-74

3.13.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-75

3.14 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality ..................................................................3-75

3.14.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-75

3.14.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-76

3.14.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-77

3.14.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-78

3.14.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-80
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 iv Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.15 Waterways and Water Bodies..................................................................................3-80

3.15.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-80

3.15.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-81

3.15.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-82

3.15.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-82

3.15.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-83

3.16 Wetlands..................................................................................................................3-83

3.16.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-84

3.16.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-84

3.16.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-85

3.16.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-85

3.16.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-86

3.17 Water Quality ...........................................................................................................3-87

3.17.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-87

3.17.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-87

3.17.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-88

3.17.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-88

3.17.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-89

3.18 Floodplains...............................................................................................................3-90

3.18.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-90

3.18.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-90

3.18.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-91

3.18.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-91

3.18.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-92

3.19 Topography, Geology, and Soils..............................................................................3-92

3.19.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-92

3.19.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-92

3.19.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-94

3.19.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-94

3.19.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-95

3.20 Natural Habitats and Wildlife....................................................................................3-95

3.20.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-95

3.20.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-96

3.20.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-98

3.20.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-99

3.20.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-101
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS v May 2013

3.21 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................3-102

3.21.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-102

3.21.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-102

3.21.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-106

3.21.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-107

3.21.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-109

3.22 Energy Use and Climate Change...........................................................................3-110

3.22.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-110

3.22.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-110

3.22.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-111

3.22.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-111

3.22.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-112

3.23 Construction Impacts .............................................................................................3-112

3.23.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-112

3.23.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-112

3.23.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-113

3.23.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-113

3.23.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-115

3.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .....................................3-116

3.24.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-116

3.24.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-116

3.24.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-117

3.24.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-117

3.24.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-117

3.25 Short-Term Use Vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment...........................3-117

3.25.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-117

3.25.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-118

3.25.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-118

3.25.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-118

3.25.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-119

3.26 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts............................................................................3-120

3.26.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-120

3.26.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-121

3.26.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-123

3.26.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-124

3.26.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-126
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 vi Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.27 Permits...................................................................................................................3-127

3.27.1 Section 404 Permit ..................................................................................3-127

3.27.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification ...................................................3-128

3.27.3 Section 9 USCG Bridge Permit................................................................3-128

3.27.4 Section 10 Permit ....................................................................................3-129

3.27.5 Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.....3-129

3.27.6 Section 408 Approval ..............................................................................3-130

3.27.7 Floodplain Development Permit...............................................................3-130

3.27.8 Air Pollution Control Permits....................................................................3-130

3.27.9 40 CFR Part 61 - NESHAP......................................................................3-131

3.27.10 Iowa Sovereign Lands Construction Permit.............................................3-131

3.27.11 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Formal Notice and 

Airspace Review......................................................................................3-131

3.27.12 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-131

3.28 Interim Implementation Phase ...............................................................................3-132

3.28.1 ROW Acquisition and Construction Impacts on Resources .....................3-132

3.28.2 Operation and Maintenance Impacts on Resources................................3-135

3.28.3 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-139

CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .............................................................................4-1

4.1 Agency Outreach .......................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Early Coordination .......................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Cooperating Agencies ...............................................................................4-21

4.1.3 Milestones .................................................................................................4-21

4.2 Tribal Outreach ........................................................................................................4-22

4.3 Stakeholder Outreach ..............................................................................................4-23

4.3.1 Outreach Tools..........................................................................................4-24

4.3.2 Scoping Meeting........................................................................................4-25

4.3.3 Alternatives Analysis Meetings ..................................................................4-31

4.3.4 Community Survey Results .......................................................................4-32

4.4 Tier 1 Draft EIS Public Hearing and Comment Process...........................................4-34

4.5 Future Opportunities for Input ..................................................................................4-39

CHAPTER 5 NEXT STEPS..................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Tier 1 Completion.......................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Tier 2 Sections ...........................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Additional Studies ......................................................................................................5-4

5.4 Mitigation Planning.....................................................................................................5-4

5.5 Project Commitments.................................................................................................5-4

5.6 Phased Implementation .............................................................................................5-5
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS vii May 2013

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS...................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Federal Railroad Administration.................................................................................6-1

6.2 Iowa Department of Transportation............................................................................6-1

6.3 Illinois Department of Transportation .........................................................................6-3

6.4 HDR Engineering, Inc. and HNTB Corporation ..........................................................6-3

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................7-1

INDEX...................................................................................................................................................I-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Counties Traversed by Routes in the Study Area ...............................................................1-8

Table 1-2. Population Change............................................................................................................ 1-10

Table 1-3. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2040.............................................................................. 1-10

Table 1-4. Population 65 Years of Age and Over............................................................................... 1-11

Table 2-1. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria .........................................................................................2-4

Table 2-2. Fine-Level Screening Criteria..............................................................................................2-6

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Comparison .......................................................................................... 2-11

Table 2-4. Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................... 2-29

Table 3.1-1. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2040.............................................................................3-4

Table 3.1-2. Total Rail Ridership by Diverted Travel Mode..................................................................3-7

Table 3.3-1. Farmland Impacts .......................................................................................................... 3-13

Table 3.8-1. Summary of Traffic Conditions....................................................................................... 3-35

Table 3.8-2. Noise Condition Definitions ............................................................................................ 3-36

Table 3.8-3. Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3-37

Table 3.8-4. Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the No-Build Alternative.......... 3-38

Table 3.8-5. Ground-borne Vibration Impacts Associated with the No-Build Alternative.................... 3-43

Table 3.8-6. Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Build Alternative................ 3-47

Table 3.8-7. Ground-borne Vibration Impacts Associated with the Build Alternative.......................... 3-52

Table 3.8-8. Distances to Category 2 Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts............................................. 3-56

Table 3.9-1. Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Study Area ...................................... 3-58

Table 3.9-2. Summary of General Conformity Determination for the Build Alternative in 2040 .......... 3-59

Table 3.9-3. Build Alternative – 2040 Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of 

Passenger Vehicle, Bus, and Plane Trips (Tons per Year)........................................... 3-60

Table 3.10-1. Hazardous Material and Waste Sites Impacts.............................................................. 3-63

Table 3.11-1. Historic Resources within the Potential Impact Area.................................................... 3-68

Table 3.15-1. Impacts on Waterways and Water Bodies ................................................................... 3-83

Table 3.16-1. Impacts on Wetlands (by type)..................................................................................... 3-86

Table 3.18-1. 100-Year Floodplain Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-91

Table 3.20-1. Natural Habitat Area Impacts ..................................................................................... 3-100
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 viii Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 3.21-1. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 3-103

Table 3.21-2. Illinois State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Study Area .................. 3-106

Table 3.21-3. Illinois State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Impacts ............ 3-109

Table 3.28-1. Total Rail Ridership by Diverted Travel Mode............................................................ 3-136

Table 4-1. Summary of Agency Scoping Comments............................................................................4-5

Table 4-2. Outreach Tools and Usage Summary ............................................................................... 4-25

Table 4-3. Community Survey Results Summary............................................................................... 4-32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Midwest Regional Rail System...........................................................................................1-3

Figure 1-2. Great Lakes Megaregion Regional Rail System with Areas of Influence (2050)................1-4

Figure 1-3. Study Area .........................................................................................................................1-7

Figure 2-1. Route Alternatives, Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha.......................................................2-3

Figure 2-2. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Build Alternative ......................................................... 2-16

Figure 2-3. Des Moines Design Options ............................................................................................ 2-19

Figure 2-4. Missouri River Crossing Design Options, Council Bluffs, IA, and Omaha, NE................. 2-20

Figure 2-5. Proposed Station and Maintenance Locations, Des Moines and 

Council Bluffs/Omaha ...................................................................................................... 2-21

Figure 2-6. Proposed Station Locations, Grinnell and Atlantic ........................................................... 2-22

Figure 2-7. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Station Stops.............................................................. 2-26

Figure 5-1. Implementation Phases .....................................................................................................5-6

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 3.8-1. FTA Noise Impact Criteria............................................................................................ 3-32

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Alternatives Analysis Report

Appendix B Chapter 3 Figures

Appendix C Socioeconomic Environment

Appendix D Title VI and EJ

Appendix E Noise and Vibration

Appendix F Air Quality

Appendix G Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Appendix H Cultural Resources
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ix May 2013

Appendix I Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas

Appendix J Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties

Appendix K Waterways and Water Bodies

Appendix L Water Quality

Appendix M Natural Habitats and Wildlife

Appendix N Threatened and Endangered Species

Appendix O Agency Coordination

Appendix P Noise and Vibration, Interim Implementation Phase

Appendix Q Tier 1 Draft EIS Comments and Responses
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 x Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SHORT FORMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADT average daily traffic

APE Area of Potential Effect

ASARCO American Smelting and Refining Company, Inc.

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BMP Best Management Practice

BNSF BNSF Railway

BTUs British Thermal Units

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970

CBIS Council Bluffs Interstate System

CBEC Council Bluffs Energy Center

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COGs Councils of Government

Corridor Chicago to Omaha corridor
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS xi May 2013

CRI&P Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad

CTA Chicago Transit Authority

CTC Centralized Traffic Control

CTS Coralville Transit System

CWR continuously welded rail

DART Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority

dB decibels

dBA A-weighted decibels

DCHs Designated Critical Habitats

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment

EC early coordination

EcoCAT Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool of Illinois DNR,

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental 

Procedures

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

EO Executive Order

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FRA Federal Railroad Administration
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 xii Tier 1 Service Level EIS

FRS Facility Registry System

FRSA Federal Railroad Safety Act

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934

GBV ground-borne vibration

GHG greenhouse gas emissions

GIS geographic information system

HC hydrocarbons

HIRTA Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

I-29 Interstate 29

I-480 Interstate 480

I-80 Interstate 80

I-88 Interstate 88

IAIS Iowa Interstate Railroad

ICT Iowa City Transit

IFPA Illinois Farmland Preservation Act

IGWS Iowa Geological and Water Survey

ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes

Illinois DNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Illinois DNR/OWR Illinois Department of Natural Resources/Office of Water Resources

Illinois DOT Illinois Department of Transportation

Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Iowa DOT Iowa Department of Transportation

Iowa DNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS xiii May 2013

INAI Illinois Natural Areas Inventory

INPC Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

Ldn day-night noise level

Leq equivalent noise level

LEP limited English proficiency

LUST leaking underground storage tank

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

MAPA Metropolitan Area Planning Agency

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MetroLINK Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District

MGT million gross tons

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSA metropolitan statistical area

MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics

MWRRI Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCSD Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division

NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

NDOR Nebraska Department of Roads

Nebraska DNR Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

NEMA Nebraska Emergency Management Agency

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 xiv Tier 1 Service Level EIS

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGPC Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOI Notice of Intent

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NS Norfolk Southern Railway

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O3 ozone

OHW ordinary high water

OHWMs Ordinary High Water Marks

OLE Office of Location and Environment

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAB Palustrine Aquatic Bed

Pb lead

PEM Palustrine Emergent

PFO Palustrine Forested
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS xv May 2013

PL Public Law

PM particulate matter

PM-2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM-10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter

PRA Pittman-Robertson Act

Project the expansion of intercity passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois, 

through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska

PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub

PTC Positive Train Control

PWEDA Public Works and Economic Development Act

Quad Cities East Moline, Moline, and Rock Island, Illinois, and Davenport and 

Bettendorf, Iowa

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

RTA Regional Transportation Authority

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SEATS Special Needs and Elderly Assisted Transportation System

SEMAs State Emergency Management Agencies

SES SouthEast Service

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP state implementation plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

STAR Line Suburban Transit Access Route

STS Special Transit Service
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 xvi Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Study Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

SWITA Southwest Iowa Transit Agency

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TCE Trichloroethylene

TCP traditional cultural property

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TWC track warrant control

UP Union Pacific Railroad

UP-NW Union Pacific Northwest

UP-W Union Pacific West

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOCs volatile organic compounds

VMT vehicle miles traveled

WA Wilderness Act